pension list, by 13,000l. a-year, and imposed upon the nation an additional perpetuity of 2,8007.*

Soon after, they divided the office of Weighmaster of Butter in Cork, into three parts; the duty of which was performed by deputies, at about 2007. each,-and the principals, who got the gross amount, had seats in Parliament. This drew from Mr. George Ponsonby the remark in one of his speeches, that there were 110 placemen in the House, and that of the gross revenue of the country, one-eighth was divided among members of Parliament.

In reference to these disgraceful acts, how truly did Mr. Grattan observe: "In a free country, the path of public treachery leads to the block; but in a nation governed like a province, to the helm !"

Such was the Government of Ireland; and who can wonder that discontent was the result, and that indignation filled every honest bosom when the noble institution of Parliament was thus turned to the vilest of purposes. A long period of mild Government, moderate in language as in manner, will be required to efface the painful recollection of the past. Nations possess wonderful memories. The courtier will lack the effrontery necessary to scoff at public virtue, and his tongue will cleave to the roof of his mouth, inadequate to the task even of palliating such political prostitution.

* See Appendix, No. 7.

393

CHAPTER XIII.

Character of Mr. Fitzgibbon-Question of tithes again brought forward by Mr. Grattan-Extracts of his speech-Proposes a composition for the Protestant clergy-Rejected-Publications against Mr. GrattanFate of the question-Treatment of the Protestant church by the Imperial parliament-Proceedings of Mr. Fitzgibbon and Mr. PittDeparture of the Marquess of Buckingham-Speech of Mr. Curran— His character.

HAVING, in this and in the preceding volumes, given a sketch of the conduct of Mr. Fitzgibbon, and the part he took upon the essential questions connected with his country, it will not be amiss to insert here a summary of his character and his life before and after he obtained the seals of office. Unquestionably he was a clever man, but his understanding was not a sound one; it was quick, and his mind was acute, but it was extremely limited in its range. He had only two or three ideas-no more. He possessed real ability in some things, but little general talent. He was a vigorous plebeian lawyer, always ready, and in general speaking well. He saw a point quickly, and stated it clearly and without hesitation. He was a zealous partisan, and well suited for party purposes; had a good strong voice and a bold manner; and as far as he went, (which was not

very far,) he was an able man, and knew well what he was about. In debate he was good; not learned, but impassioned; he always felt what he spoke, which in popular speaking is half the battle. He was violent in personal attack; he never spared your character; he would your person. In council he was hot, but his decision was not the result of thinking, as in other men; he decided first and thought after; it was not the result of reasoning, as in other men, but of passion. In his decisions he was prejudiced, and biassed by his feelings, which in their nature were hot, angry, and vindictive. He was rapid in his statement of facts, and never sought for finery; he never fell in love with his own sentences, that was his merit. He went right on to his object, and so far he was eloquent; but he was a narrow-minded man, devoid of a single great principle, and displaying none of that greatness which is to be found among the speeches of old times,-none of the noble sentiments that adorn those of Cicero or Demosthenes. His speeches in 1793 on the Catholics, in 1797 on the state of Ireland, and 1800 on the Union, will not be read for style, or language, or principle. They were composed of pert and saucy sentences, with some talent interspersed, but no principle; and the former so inferior, that it does not make up for the want of the latter. They are the production of a party termagant, struggling on

behalf of another country against the liberties of his own.

Mr. Fitzgibbon made a bad commencement, for a young man. In 1780 he spoke against the declaration of Irish rights proposed by Mr. Grattan. He attacked the Volunteers, as well as the Government for having allowed them to get to such a head. There were three points in his speech :he denied the right of the British Parliament to legislate for Ireland; he said the Volunteers were wrong to oppose that right, and the Government still more wrong for permitting them: he called them "a torpid Ministry."* He spoke well on this occasion,-very ably and bitterly. He afforded a strong contrast to Hussey Burgh. The latter was an Irishman ;-the former, neither English nor Irish; but he knew that England was the seat of influence, and he wished to continue the dependency. He did not perceive that the liberty of his country raised, instead of depressing him. The defeat of his principles was his elevation; their success was his downfall. He opposed the rights of Ireland, and it was owing to their establishment that he became Chancellor. When, at the Union, his political principles succeeded, he became nothing.

Fitzgibbon is a signal instance of the folly of being a dishonest man.

If compared to his friend and ally, Scott, (Lord

* The ministry of Lord Buckinghamshire, 1779-80.

Clonmel,) it might be said that Lord Clare would have made a better attack on an opponent, -not so comical, but more offensive; for he possessed the art of adding odium to what was odious already, and thus he united all parties against him. The difference between these two men was, that Lord Clare's talents would have advanced him at the bar,-Lord Clonmel's would not. Their characters so far agreed, that they both hated their country.

He

Fitzgibbon possibly would have been a good man, if he had not been a politician. Personally, he was not a disagreeable man. He possessed shrewdness and point in conversation,* and was not a bad flatterer. Still his society was not attractive: he offered a bad model,-was severe and sarcastic. It was impossible, in his company, not to learn some aberration from virtue. spoiled the young men of the day; he vulgarized them, rendered them low in principle, bad in manners, impudent, and affected. He not only injured society, but did much disservice to the House of Commons. He headed a vile party— arrogant, shallow, and superficial, needy lawyers, of a few hundred pounds a-year--trading adventurers, who were ready to sell the House

*The only jeu d'sprit reported of him was the following:

"When the Chief Baron (Yelverton) at the time of the King's illness went over to London, his companions were Curran, Egan, and R. Barret; on which Fitzgibbon remarked that he travelled like a mountebank, with a monkey, a bear, and a slight-of-hand man."