involved Ireland in 30 years of sufferings under military tyranny, insurrection, and rebellion, and which at times has shook the stability of the empire to its centre.

Upon a debate in the House of Lords, which took place soon after Lord Fitzwilliam's return to England, on the subject of his conduct in Ireland, Lord Westmorland said, by the directions of Mr. Pitt, "That he had no authority whatever from "ministers in this country for taking the steps "which he had done on the Catholic question." The incorrectness, however, of this assertion, it is now no very difficult matter to expose. In the first place, the measure of emancipation to the Catholics was originally the measure of Mr. Pitt and the Westmorland administration. * "The "most strenuous and zealous friends," says Lord Fitzwilliam," of my predecessor, claimed the "credit of it for their patron in terms of the highest compliment. They did it in the House "of Commons, they did it in the House of Lords "last night. The persons whom Lord Westmor"land then principally consulted, opposed it; but "the open interference of Lord Hobart, the "avowed determination of the British Cabinet, "communicated as such to the Catholic agents "on the spot, as through the medium of confi"dential persons sent over to England for that purpose, bore down the opposition. The declar"ations of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas are well "known in this country, and are often quoted, They would not risk a rebellion in Ireland on "such a question."

66

46

66

*Lord Fitzwilliam to Lord Carlisle.

Here then is evidence, which has never been controverted, that, even before Lord Fitzwilliam went to Ireland, the measure had been determined upon by Mr. Pitt. The only question, therefore, to be decided, in judging of the correctness of Lord Westmorland's assertion, is, whether or not Mr. Pitt had consented that the proper time for adopting this measure was arrived, when Lord Fitzwilliam was sent to Ireland. That he had so consented there is in proof" the language which the "Duke of Portland had held so publicly for years "back," that the emancipation of the Catholics was indispensably necessary. There is the fact of his refusing to coalesce with Mr. Pitt, unless this measure was conceded; there are the frequent consultations that took place concerning it between Mr. Pitt, Lord Fitzwilliam, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Ponsonby; the acceptance also of the office of Lord Lieutenant by Lord Fitzwilliam; and, finally, the word and honour of Lord Fitzwilliam, that Mr. Pitt's consent was absolutely given.

No event in our history has ever happened that has been attended with more pernicious consequences than the decision that Mr. Pitt at this time made to recal Lord Fitzwilliam. Had he allowed the Catholics to be restored to their constitutional rights, they would have secured the peace of Ireland, and have afforded every support in their power to the government. The contrary policy threw the mass of the poorer Catholics into the hands of the United Irishmen; involved the country in a civil war; and established that succession of disturbances and insurrection which have prevailed in Ireland, with little interruption, from the year 1795 to the present time.

When the differences that existed between the

Lord Lieutenant and the English Cabinet were known, grief and consternation seized all who had flattered themselves that the measures of his Ex.cellency's administration were to redress the grievances, remove the discontents, and work the salvation of Ireland. In the House of Commons, Sir Lawrence Parsons moved to limit the money bills to two months; but Lord Milton and Mr. George Ponsonby deprecated the measure, and it was rejected. The House of Commons, however, unanimously resolved, that his Excellency had, by his conduct since his arrival, merited the thanks of the House, and the confidence of the people.

Out of parliament the discontent was more manifest. The Catholics, who had now for six months felt secure of being at length relieved from the execrable system of pains and penalties, as the Duke of Portland himself was accustomed to call it, now saw the cup dashed from their lips, and could not but despair of ever seeing any termination to the duplicity of English Cabinets. The Catholics of Dublin, impelled by these feelings, assembled on the 27th of February, and voted a petition to the King for the continuance of Lord Fitzwilliam as their Chief Governor; and those of the whole kingdom followed their example, by adopting resolutions and addresses expressive of the same sentiments.

The Protestants, too, assembled extensively, and as loudly spoke their indignation at what they condemned as ministerial treachery, and considered as a great public calamity. The freemen and freeholders of the city of Dublin, like the Catholics, agreed to a petition to the King. The merchants and traders of the city expressed their sorrow at the rumoured recall of his Excellency, and their

entire concurrence in the removal of all religious disabilities. The counties of Kildare, Wexford, Antrim, and Londonderry, followed the example of the freemen and freeholders of the capital, and the same sentiments seemed to pervade every part of the kingdom. The active republicans and new united Irishmen alone were not sorry at the agitation and controversies which were now springing up.

These expressions, however, of dissatisfaction on the part of the Irish people, were of no avail. Ireland was doomed to see a system of burning and torture succeed a system of conciliation, and Lord Camden was selected as a fit person to succeed Lord Fitzwilliam as Lord Lieutenant.

The measure of union comes the next in the course of the events in which the Catholics as a body were concerned; and, in strict propriety, it would be right now to proceed to show how the Catholics were affected by it. But as there have been, and still are, those who, either through ignorance or in defiance of all regard for truth, assert that the rebellion of 1798 was a Catholic rebellion, and that the conduct of the Catholics on that occasion affords a justification for refusing to grant them further concessions, it will contribute to promote a more just view of the subject, if those facts are referred to, which exist, to refute the supposition that the Catholics, as a body, were concerned in rebellion.

Fortunately for the cause of truth and justice, there do exist documents, the authority of which no sophistry or calumny can impeach. These are the reports of the committees of the Irish parliament. They so minutely explain the cause, the conduct, and the character of this rebellion, and

give such accurate information respecting those who were concerned in it, that it is impossible for any one to affix to it any other character than that which they have given to it. The justification, therefore, of the Catholics, by these reports, rests upon this circumstance, that, to maintain that the rebellion was a Catholic rebellion, is to dispute the authority of these reports, which make no such charge, and account for it by other means.

The following extracts from the report of the committee of the House of Commons, appointed, in 1798, to examine the evidence, contains a faithful description of the origin and object of this

transaction.

"The society, under the name of United Irishmen, it appears, was established in 1791; its founders held forth what they termed Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform, as the ostensible objects of their union but it clearly appeared, from the letter of Theobald Wolf Tone, accompanying their original constitution, as transmitted to Belfast for their adoption, that, from its commencement, the real purpose of those who were at the head of the institution, was to separate Ireland from Great Britain, and to subvert the established constitution of this kingdom: in corroboration of which, your committee have annexed to this report several of their early publications, particularly a prospectus of the society which appeared in the beginning of the year 1791; as also the plan of reform they recommended to the people."

For the first three years their attention was entirely directed to the engaging in their society persons of activity and talents, in every quarter of the kingdom; and in preparing the public mind for