Page images
PDF
EPUB

their places implied a charge; the Right Hon. Gentleman who followed him, did not contend for the principle to that extent; and indeed if that were fo, there was an end to the pofition already laid down, That the fafety of the realm depended on the conftitutional right of the Crown to nominate and difmifs its fervants at pleasure-and there would be a neceffity to inquire into the caufe of every difmiflion. The Right Hon. Gentleman could not but fee how very prolific a field for inquiry would be opened. The Learned Gentleman who moved the question, had ftated the case of a Noble Admiral (Lord Hood); the Learned Gentleman would be able to form a judgment of the expediency of fuch inquiries, and decide more juftly upon that right, when he recollected that the gallant Lord Rodney, in the most interefting and critical. period of a very ruinous and exhaufting war, and in the very moment of victory, was recalled by the minister of that day*, without any caufe affigned, and no fuch inquiry was called for or thought to be neceffary. [Here, on the fuggeftion of the Members behind him, Mr. Pitt corrected himself, and faid] Yes, an inquiry was called for, and the Right Hon. Gentleman himself refifted it; and, what was more, while he profeffed that he had himself advised the change, moved for the thanks of the House to be given to the Noble Admiral! If then, in fuch very extraordinary circumftances, an Admiral, who was a folitary inftance of fuccessful valour, in a moft calamitous war, was recalled by the very minifter who moved the thanks of the House to him, was it poflible to fay that any ftigma could attach to difmillion without inquiry? And with the utmost respect for Lord Fitzwilliam, he conceived that there was nothing in the cafe of a Lord Lieutenant being difmiffed, more than that of the difmiffion of a military officer, or any other fervant of the Crown. Befides, he put it to the reflection of the Houfe to determine whether there might not be a caufe for removal without a crime. Could it not happen that there might exist a difference of opinion on fome cafe of tranfcendent importance, though the parties differing retained the most cordial affection for, and good opinion of each other?

Would the Houfe, he demanded, fuppofe any thing more in recalling a Lord Lieutenant, during a feffion of Parliament, than in withdrawing a Secretary of State pending a negotiation for peace? Certainly not-Yet did the House forget that the Right Hon. Gentleman refigned his office, on a mere matter of difference of opinion, juft at the end of the war, in a most important moment of negotiation-on a difference in

*Mr. Fox himself.

opinion

opinion with one Member of Adminiftration refpecting the independence of America? A minifter (Mr. Fox), whofe talents and political character made his affiftance in the higheft degree important, abandoned his office in the most difficult crifis, though he was confcious that his doing fo would lead to the diffolution of an union formed on grounds of public neceffity-yet there was no inquiry into that: And when a Noble Duke (the Duke of Leeds), in the midst of a preparation for a war with Ruflia, refigned the fituation he held, he did not feel himself bound to aík an inquiry-nor did other Gentlemen, though extremely hoftile to the war with Ruffia, make it the foundation of inquiry. Taking thefe facts as they were, he applied them to the cafe before the House, and faid, that there was not that difference between the cafes of Lord Fitzwilliam and the Noble Duke, or that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that could make him more an object of inquiry; nor was it any difparagement to apply the fame principles to him that applied to them. But it was ftated, for the purpose of fhewing that his Lordship's cafe was out of the ordinary course, that he had been encouraged by his Majefty's minifters on this fide of the water, to hold out to the Catholics of Ireland the expectation of emancipation, which was afterwards oppofed by them. Taking it for argument fake to be true, it might arife from a difference of opinion, which did not neceffarily imply a crime on either fide; and if that difference did exift between them, how could they act in concert for the fervice of the British empire?

A conftruction had been put on fome words which had fallen from him on a former night, utterly different from what he could have imagined or then faid.—Ón occasion of a motion for an inquiry into the state of the nation, the state of Ireland had been introduced into difcuffion, and he, in anfwer, ftated as his opinion, that the agitation of that fubject, in a British Houfe of Parliament, was hurtful on the very fame grounds as he fhould then contend, namely, that it was injudicious, if not highly improper, to anticipate the bufinefs of the Irish Parliament on the one hand, or to affume the right of canvaffing their determinations on the other-he that night stated the ills that would probably arife from inquiry, and faid, that if any mifchief happened in Ireland, no part of it could be attributed to his Majefty's minifters on this fide of the water. The Houfe would judge whether Gentlemen in this cafe had given his words fairly and candidly; but if they determined, with the Hon. Gentleman who made the motion, that there must be guilt, because there was a difmiffion, they muft go farther, and fay with him, that there was no juft reafon against Qq 2

inquiry

inquiry in any cafe-that there was no cafe in which the public diicioiure of the councils of Government could be dangerous, or elfe that it was right to facrifice public duty to the delicacy of private reputation-more than this he would not fay.

As to the point of justice to Lord Fitzwilliam, why did the Hon. Gentleman confine it to him? Why, in the matter of juftice, did he leparate his Lordfhip from the rest of his Majefty's minifters? The plea of justice applied to them as well as him. If his Lordship had stated to the Public all that he had to fay for himself, and they had any thing more favourable to fay of themselves, it was not his Lordship, but they, that suffered, if they fuppreffed it: But however aggrieved, his Lordship as well as they fhould fubmit to the lot of public men, and facrifice private to public interest.

On the grounds of public policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecated the introduction in that House, of the points on which the motion of the night was grounded: They were points on which there was a vaft difference of opinion in the country to which they belonged, and where they arofc. As to the Catholics in queftion, he would not ftate all the delicate political points on the great frame of the civil and ecclefiaftical conftitutions of Ireland, involved in it; but would fuppofe any one of them, and put to the confideration of the House the propriety of the difcuffion of it. To make the inquiry aniwer any purpose, they must enter into and examine all the opinions on those points. He would fuppofe that examination. to come on while the fame queftion was pending in the Parliament of Ireland, would it be right to treat that independent Parliament in that manner? to felect the very moment of their deliberation to tread over the fame grounds, and examine the fame question?

If the queftion was the fame, it was a wound to their independence; and if the inquiry only led to the fame result, there was nothing gained to the Public: But if, on the contrary, the Houfe was to decide differently, the difcuffion and decifion would be an impeachment of the independence of the Parliament of Ireland, and encourage discontent in that country.

Fortunately, however, no fuch risk could be run; no fuch difcuffion could take place here, for that great and delicate queftion had already been decided by the Irish Parliament. Thus, what good could the agitation of the queftion do? He would fuppofe for argument fake, that the British Parliament decided in oppofition to the Irish Parliament. What would be the fituation of his Majefty's minifters, if on every question depending in Ireland, the Parliament of Great Britain pronounced judgment, and in any of them, a contrary judgment,

what

what would be their ftate to advife his Majefty to reject as King of England that which as King of Ireland he might feel himself engaged to give his affent to? Did those who with the Houfe to adopt this mode, think to promote the harmony and cement the connexion between that country and this, by introducing measures fo pregnant with confufion and difcord?

With regard to the arrangements of office in Ireland, how were they to be examined here? The Gentlemen there might be reprefented on one hand as quarrelling for power, avarice, or ambition, and on the other, as most likely to conciliate and preferve amity between the two nations; but who were to be the judges of fo very important a queftion? Not the Parliament of England; certainly not; but that of Ireland, who were familiar with them, who had the means of examining, and the right to decide; who were judges in point of power, and witneffes in point of fact: Whereas here we had neither power to make a decifion effectual, nor means to make an inquiry complete.

Some names had been mentioned (thofe in particular of Lord Fitzgibbon, Mr. Beresford, Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Toler, and Mr. Cooke), all of whom carried with them the teftimony of fucceffive Governments for talents, integrity, and fidelity. That however was not a subject, to the examination of which, a British Houfe of Parliament was competent.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded with declaring, that as he thought the Houfe fhould not entertain the motion at all, he should vote for the Order of the Day.

Mr. M. Robinson spoke for the original motion.

Lord Milton (late Secretary to Earl Fitzwilliam, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) faid, the caufe of the recal of Earl Fitzwilliam was a dereliction by minifters here of all that had been agreed upon before he fet out for Ireland. It was perfectly understood, that every thing expected by the Roman Catholics was to be granted at fuch time as might appear most conducive to the general tranquillity and harmony of the two countries, of which the Earl was to be the judge. With the complete perfuafion that this was fo understood, the Earl entered upon the Government of Ireland; and whether the difference that foon after appeared arofe from his mistake, or from their change of opinion, minifters never fent him the leaft intimation of either, although they had full time to do so, till the application of the Catholics had received fuch countenance as could not be retracted with honour. The eternal blame of this bufinefs must attach to minifters, as the Lord Lieutenant had written to his Majefty's minifters on the 27th of January, and did not receive, an anfwer until the 14th of February

fol

17

following, during which time he was never once undeceiv ed. That Earl Fitzwilliam was highly popular in Ireland, he fhould be wanting in proper feeling not to declare; but he was bound alfo to declare that his popularity was not fo much owing to the opinion entertained of his perfonal character, greatly as that was refpected, as to the hopes conceived by the people of Ireland, from the appointment of the Duke of Portland to the high ftation he now filled in his Majefty's fervice, and the fending for Mr. Ponfonby and Mr. Grattan foon after to this country. The Irifh nation complained of being deceived, of being treated with duplicity. On the part of Earl Fitzwilliam, he claimed an inquiry, that he might either be exempted from fufpicion, or cenfured if blameable; for even miftake in affairs of fuch importance would be blameable. He would affirm, however, that Earl Fitzwilliam was not to blame, but that minifters here were culpable as far as refpected the difference upon measures. With refpect to the removal of Mr. Beresford, Mr. Wolfe, and Mr. Toler from office in Irelind, either effected or intended, it was a change wifhed for by the people of Ireland, and must have been expected by minifters here. They perfectly well knew of Earl Fitzwilliam's intention, and ought to have stated their objections before he went over, which they never did. The removals in his own (the Secretary's) office he judged neceffary for the public fervice. Mr. Hamilton was fatisfied, Mr. Cooke was not. The perfons appointed to fucceed them had done their duty with diligence and ability; and one of them had been continued in oflice. Earl Fitzwilliam had no objection to carrying the motion to any extent minifters might with; they themselves were the judges of ftate fecrecy, and of how far it would be fit to carry it. The difmiffion of former Lord Lieutenants had been referred to as parallel cafes. They had been difmiffed by new minifters with whom they had no political connexion; Earl Fitzwilliam had been difmiffed by his colleagues-that wounded to the quick. He would not fay who were thofe colleagues-He would not trust himself upon that fubject.

Mr. (Orde) Pawlet contended, that the infinuations which had been thrown out in the courfe of the debate refpecting the fuppofed corruption which prevailed in the Government of Ireland, were without foundation; from the fituation which he had the honour of filling in that country, he was enabled, with a confiderable degree of accuracy, to decide upon this point, and he affirmed, the reverfe of that affertion would upon an inquiry be found to be the cafe. He alluded to Mr. Berefford and the feveral other Gentlemen who had been mentioned,

as

« PreviousContinue »