to give an opinion on the Legiflature of Ireland? The Learned Gentleman had ftated a principle, which, if true, proved the conftitution of this country to be very different from what he ever thought it.--He had stated, that every man who was removed from any office under Government was difgraced, if he had not an inquiry into his conduct. He begged leave to diffent from that principle. If every perfon thus difmiffed was to be confidered as ftigmatized, there would be a wide field. indeed laid open for the inquiry of that Houfe. He could not help taking notice of the manner in which Gentlemen had been alluded to, who had lent their affiftance in Parliament to Adminiftration.-If they were to be ftigmatized as deterters, he could not agree in the appellation. He thought that the event of their having fo' joined Adminiftration, was the best part of our hiftory. He thought that this motion was calculated to difunite friends, inttead of being ferviceable to the country; but he hoped the majority of the Houfe would feel they were engaged in a different cause. They had a common caufe to maintain, and that was of fuperior importance to this-fuperior even to the unity of the empire itfelf. In that cause he trusted he might look upon the Noble Earl as one of our diftinguifhed leaders. He trufted the majority would join with him, in endeavouring to heal the wound, inftead of increafing it. In this hope and expectation he had, without confultation with any one, formed a determination to take the best step which, in his opinion, could be taken, to pafs by this difcuffion, and therefore he moved the Order of the Day.

The queftion for the Order of the Day being read from the chair,

Mr. Fox faid, he certainly could not, like his Learned Friend who made this motion, allege that he had no particular intimacy or acquaintance with the Noble Earl; he could not poffibly deny, that, through the whole of his political life, he had a frong friendship for the Noble Earl, a friendship and an intimacy in private, and, until lately, a clofe connexion in political affairs; a friendfhip that afforded him the fincereft pleafure, and highly gratified his pride, because formed on fuch a bafis that no difference of opinion upon any fubject could entirely do away. He thought he had a right to fay, and he expected to be believed when he faid, that, however great fuch friendship might be, it could not warp his political opinion, nor affect his political conduct: For however pleafing the prefervation of that friendship and connexion might be, he had never fo regarded either, as not to confider them inferior to the confideration of his public duty, against which

he never had, nor fhould place any thing in competition; therefore this good he hoped would happen to him, that as he had been fo unfortunate as to differ from that Noble Earl upon political topics, the Public would have no doubt that he was actuated by pure principles in endeavouring to promote the inquiry that was propofed.

This inquiry was called for upon two grounds which were diftinct from each other: Firft, with regard to Earl Fitzwilliam perfonally; fecondly, with regard to the intereft which the Public had in the inquiry. The first of thefe was certainly the leaft important; but even fuppofing that the first was the only ground, he was of opinion it would have been fufficient to call upon the juftice of the Houfe to accede to the prefent motion. He confeffed he could not go the length of agreeing entirely with his Learned Friend, that a difmiflion by Adminiftration, of any individual, unless under circumstances of known imputed malverfation, muft be deemed a perfonal cenfure; but he agreed entirely that in this cafe an attempt had been made by his Majefty's minifters, to convey fome cenfure on the character of the Noble Earl. He allowed that the prerogative of the Crown to difmifs its officers, was fuch as was not upon all occafions to be queftioned, but when exercifed in an extraordinary manner it became the duty of that Houfe to inquire into the exercife of it; and although he did not allow that every difmiflion conveyed a cenfure upon an individual difmiffed, yet he could not go the length of faying, that no circumftance under which a perfon might be difmiffed could convey a ftigma. In this cafe, he believed, the common sense of mankind was, that minifters had, in the manner in which the Noble Earl had been recalled, attempted to caft a ftigma upon his character. There must be one of two reasons for the difmiffion of the Noble Earl; either that he exercifed his power as Lord Lieutenant very improperly, or that he misunderstood his inftructions. Some ftrong reafon the Public must expect to have occafioned his recal, fince it was a circumftance attended by great public inconvenience, great public rifque, and many very powerful remonftrances. On both thefe grounds. Lord Fitzwilliam told us that he was difmiffed, not from mifunderstanding his inftructions, for making improper ufe of his power, but for acting, as he had been taught to think, in the manner which was the most agreeable to his employers. He told us that he had been difmiffed for acting in direct conformity to the directions he received from the Cabinet of Great Britain. If, however, what had been declared in the Parliament of Ireland was true, that he acted with great impru dence and impropriety, he acted contrary to the intention of

thofe

thofe who employed him. If this be true, he was guilty of a great crime, for imprudence in a character of fuch eminence was a great crime. Here, therefore, Earl Fitzwilliam and minifters were at iffue. The parties differed upon the fact, and it was right for the Public to know the real truth between them. Earl Fitzwilliam underftood his recal as a fligma on his character. It was true, that the act itself might or might not be a ftigma, becaufe that depended on the circumftances that created it. But furely, in the common fenfe of the thing, the recal must be deemed the cenfure of his Majesty's minifters upon the conduct of the Noble Earl, and that too of the most extraordinary kind.. Mr. Fox proceeded to read fome parts of the letters of the Noble Earl upon the fubject, wherein he ftates the understanding between him and the Cabinet, upon the queftion of the emancipation of the Catholics; and wherein he juftifies himself for the part he had taken upon that fubject. Minifters alleged there was no fuch understanding between them. The queftion for the Houfe to inquire into was this-Was the ftatement of Earl Fitzwilliam true or falfe? To afcertain this was the object of the prefent motion; and it was an important object. The character of the Noble Earl had been faid to be unfullied; he hoped, he trufted, and he believed it was. But why was it fo? It was from the impotence of his enemies; for if their conduct had been right, the character of the Noble Earl, instead of being unfullied, muft have been highly criminal, as they had given to the Public more than infinuation upon that fubject. It had been alleged alfo, that this motion tended to excite animofities, particularly by the Hon. Gentleman who fpoke laft. He difclaimed all ideas of exciting animofity. Some of the parties in this difpute had been long friends, and while he was a friend of theirs, he faw them always as brothers. In their former friendship and connexion, he witneffed nothing but honour, confidence, friendship, and attachment. It was only after they had got into their new company, that they found difcord, diftruft, and animofity. Such was the fate of their new connexions. Had the Noble Earl continued united with his old friends, he would not have been brought into his prefent difagreeable fituation. But when he formed his new connexions, he found he had got into a family compact, with the principles of which it was impoffible for him to agree. The confequence was, the parties quarrelled, and bitterly accufed each other. He remembered the time when it was fashionable to accufe certain Gentlemen of having formed a political connexion, which was fuppofed to be a fpecies of aristocracy, hoftile both to the prerogative of the Crown, and

the

the interefts of the People. He always thought that obfervation ridiculous; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever any real apprehenfions of the danger of fuch a coalition, he had acted wifely in the laft ftep he had taken upon that fubject; for, by entering into a coalition himself with fome branches of all parties, he had completely deftroyed any danger from

them all.

With refpect to the other part of the fubject, which he owned appeared to him to be the most important one, namely, the interest which the Public had in this inquiry, he must obferve, in answer to the queftion, For what purpose was this fubject to be difcuffed? that the Public had a right to complete information as to who the perfons were whofe conduct had created fuch public inconvenience. If mifchief had been done, if danger had been occafioned, it was fitting the Public fhould know to whom it was owing; it must be owing to his Majefty's minifters or to the Noble Earl. Nothing could clear up that point but the inquiry propofed in the motion then before the Houfe. Certain Gentlemen had come with a covering to the whole subject; they objected to this inquiry becaufe they did not know that the refult might not be that of removing his Majefty's minifters. Upon this he owned it did not appear to him that if minifters fhould, upon this inquiry, appear to deferve the cenfure of the Houfe, they should therefore neceffarily be removed. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke laft had gone fo far as to fay, that even if it appeared to him - minifters had mifconducted themfelves, he should not vote for this inquiry, for the caufe in which they were engaged was more important than even the union of the empire. Mr. Fox faid, he wifhed the Houfe to mark the end of this, for under fuch a principle no inquiry could ever take place; the cause in which we were engaged, according to this doctrine, must fuperfede every other fubject. Let the Public know that this was the fort of answer that was to be given to all questions, when the conduct of his Majefty's minifters was proposed to be difcuffed. If this was to be really the practice of that Houfe, he thought it was but fair for the Houfe at once to fay fo, inftead of betraying their conftituents, by pretending to hold a power of inquiring into any circumstances that related to the conduct of the fervants of the Crown. It would be better and more honeft, at once to fay, that the functions of Parliament should be fufpended until the end of the war, than to fit there day after day, to act mockery after mockery, and to pretend to have an idea of inquiring into any thing, the poffible refult of which might be the removal of the King's

minifters.

Much

Much had been faid of the dangers of fuch inquiries as thefe. He was of opinion that the greatest of all dangers that could poflibly threaten a free ftate, was that of ministers being enabled to go on without cenfure with any plan which their ambition, folly, or madness might fuggeft; this was the danger which threatened the country; it was from this we fuffered, were now fuffering, and he feared were doomed to fuffer fo much calamity. He would fay, that the imagination of man could not conceive any thing more injurious to the true interests of this country, than that of refufing an inquiry into the conduct of the minifters of.the Crown, merely becaufe fuch inquiry might lead to their removal. It was this, as he had before ftated, had brought on us all our difafters. He would ask the House to look at the fituation of this country in the year 1792, and to compare it with their fituation at prefent, and then to tell him whether they thought it poffible for diftrefs to have been more dreadfully accumulated upon them by any combination of misfortunes. Let them, therefore, reflect upon their prefent fituation, and let that House adopt the old practice of a good Houfe of Commons, entertain its conftitutional jealoufy, and inftitute inquiries independent of all confiderations as to the refult leading to a removal of any Adminiftration. Mr. Fox compared the difmission of Earl Fitzwilliam with the refignation and difmiffion of Lord Carlisle, Lord Temple, Lord Northington, and others, and pointed out the difference between this and all of them. In the cafes of all thofe noble perfons, the difmiffions and refignations arofe in confequence of the change of Adminiftration, and therefore they differed entirely from the prefent cafe. Some perfons might perhaps object to this motion, as the very words of it conveyed an idea, that it was dangerous to fuffer any inquiry whatever to take place, because it stated circumstances, from which it might be inferred that Ireland was in danger. The conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam was certainly very dangerous. But to whom was it dangerous? To the people of Ireland? By no means. It was dangerous only to the few individuals whofe plan it was to govern Ireland by corruption: It was dangerous to thofe who held the intereft and the fentiments of the people of that country in contempt; and therefore the caufe of the removal of the Noble Earl upon that principle was eafily perceived. The Noble Earl was, he believed, the only perfon who had the good fortune to obtain the applaufes of all the Catholics and Diflenters of Ireland; the only perfon who, fince the acceffion of the Houfe of Brunfwick, had been able to unite all parties in that kingdom; and that, perhaps, to his Majesty's prefent