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. CurranHis 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."

and the country. In former times, in those of Malone and Pery,-there was dignity, gravity, and decorum in that assembly; a noble character at that time pervaded it: but this, Fitzgibbon altered. He introduced pert, boyish ways, that were readily imitated, and did much injury.

In this respect, however, Fitzgibbon did not. stand alone; Beresford assisted him. Beresford was a good man in private; but he got on by taking the part of England in every question in which Ireland was concerned, and in consequence he was chosen Minister,-to maintain English interest, (as it was then called,) that is, Irish dependence. To do this at the expense of character, was a bad, but a sure game. Both these individuals were selected for it, and were always prepared to play their part-the part of England against Ireland.

Fitzgibbon showed the most abandoned profligacy and the most abject servility to the Court, and the utmost abhorrence to the liberties of the people. He was one of the few men who really hated his country. He displayed an unnatural disposition towards her, hating her liberties,

* Flood used to say of him: "In England or in any great country, his abilities would not be known, but here he has just talent fit for provincial mischief." And in his quaint, expressive manner, Curran described him as 66 cruel by nature, a hypocrite by nature, a tyrant by nature, and a slave by nature, for these go hand in hand, and despotism pays its rent upon her knees."