1805. Motions in the Com mous re specting soners. which all the facts of the case were too well known*. ་ Great pains were taken by Government to extol the steadiness, moderation and liberality of State pri- Lord Hardwicke's Government. Yet the public did not readily account for the frequent changes of his first Secretaries. He had not been four years in Ireland, when the nomination of Mr. Vansittart to succeed Sir Evan Nepean, made the fifth appointment to that important and lucrative situation since his Excellency's arrival in Dublin on the 23d of May 1801 t. Equally difficult was it to bring On the 29th of November 1805, Mr. J. Johnson was found guilty in a trial at Bar before the four Judges of the King's Bench at Westminster. The only point made at the trial was, whether the manuscript were the hand-writing of J. Johnson. Four persons holding situations in public departments in Ireland, swore, that they believed that to be his hand-writing: five gentlemen swore the contrary. The learned Judge was put to a necessary expence of several thousand pounds in the matter. Pending this bill in the Commons, Mr. Vansittart moved for a copy of the correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Judges relative to the case of Mr. Judge Johnson: a tolerable proof, that it was treated more as a matter of State policy, than of constitutional law. + An anonymous writer published in 1808, A Sketch of the State of Ireland past and present, in which he thus notices this rapid succession of Irish Chief Secretaries or Ministers. "A quicksand Go"vernment, that swallows in its fluctuations every venture at "reform. In seven years we have had four Chief Governors, "and eight Chief Secretaries, of different principles and parties, "each stifling the abortive system of his predecessor by a sys"tem as abortive." More truly would he have said, that they were successively appointed to devise new projects for disguising and perpetuating one common system of oppression and division. within any system of moderation or liberality the unprecedented sufferings and hardships of the individuals, who were apprehended in 1803, and confined under the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and their confinement aggravated by the most unwarrantable and barbarous treatment. Lord Henry Petty moved, that there should be laid before the House of Commons copies of the depositions of the State prisoners confined in Kilmainham Goal, as given on oath before three Judges of the Court The author of that pamphlet assumes the queint originality of acute perception, incomptlete reflecion, and ambiguous conclusion. He affects the patriot, and libels his country. In proclaiming himself unbiassed, he betrays prejudice, bigotry, and fear owning, that in Ireland impartiality seldom thinks, and never writes, anticipating his own fate of being heard by few and offending many, he asserts, this my situation, the inevitable fate of cotemporary truth. If the pamphleteer possessed that respectability, which his talents and attainments entitle him to, the publication of his name would have sanctioned all the truths, and repressed most of the falsehoods, which superabound in his publication. No liberal man would dare to affix an untainted name to the following coarse, petulant, and unfounded abuse of honourable, wise, and virtuous personages (49). "This Emmeft and “M'Nevin, liberal, sagacious, and well-informed, have admitted, though Keogh, Newport, and Parnell, furious, shallow, and "bigotted, deny it." In 1809, appeared a pamphlet, entituled, "A Defence of Ireland, or a refutation of national calumnies, particularly of a libellous publication, purporting to give "sketches of Ireland past and present, with reflections on the "Amor Patria, and its natural offspring a national spirit, by Erigena, &c." The purport of the title is made good by the author. Erigena writes with the steady perspicuity of the philosopher, the erudition and elegance of the scholar, and the unaffected ardor of the patriot. 1805. 1805. of King's Bench in Ireland, who sat there for that purpose on the 16th and 17th of July 1804; and also copies of the memorials from the said prisoners of State to the Lord Lieutenant, prior and subsequent to the said dates. Mr. James Fitzgerald on another occasion, moved for an account of all persons imprisoned in Ireland for treasonable charges, together with the causes of their arrests, their means of subsistence whilst in prison, and how and when such of them as had been liberated were discharged. Difficulties were made by the Minister against specifying the grounds of commitment, lest it should lead to a discovery of the channels*, through which Government obtained informations. This was the plea, upon which Government constantly rested the justice of the different indemnity bills. It is notorious, that in numerous cases of State prisoners having been confined for years, no charge or information had been made. It appears therefore, that indemnities were more anxiously called for, tò prevent enquiries, whether any and what persons had been con fined without charges or informations against them, than to prevent discoveries of the channels, through which Government obtained the information, by which they affected to be guided in their discretion. The malignant imbecillity of Lord Hardwicke's Government is indelibly recorded in the profusion of innocent victims they sacrificed to cover or atone for their own improvidence and neglect in July 1803. It not only appeared in evidence on the trials of the State prisoners at that period, but was expressly admitted by Lord Castlereagh in the House of Commons in discussing the shameful events of that season, that not one hundred men had given into the rebellious projects of the unfortunate enthusiast Emmett, and yet above 2000 persons were most rigorously punished, who, if either disposed or pro get and fi ments. Mr. Foster having brought forward the Irish 1805. Budget, in order to provide for the part of the Irish Budsupplies for the year to be raised by loan in Ireland, nancial arseveral debates and conversations took place in the mast House of Commons upon Irish taxation. In one of them Mr. James Fitzgerald urged the propriety of adjusting the joint account between England and Ireland, in which though Commissioners had been appointed for the purpose in the last and preceding session of Parliament, no progress whatever had been made. Trusting that the Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer (Mr. Foster) would attend seriously to that necessary subject, he moved for the production of several papers; viz, an account of all payments on the civil list of Ireland from January 1, 1801, distinguishing the classes, and specifying the savings or additions on each class, with the causes thereof: an account of all duties outstanding on bond or otherwise in Ireland: an account of all new taxes laid in Ireland since January 1, 1801, and the produce of each up to January 1805: an account of the stock in hand in Ireland on July 10, 1804 of teas, wine, sugar, malt, and home-made spirits, with the amount of the additional duty: also an account of the encrease of all duties in Ireland since January 1, 1801. He also brought in a bill of much utility to the country for ascertaining the right of - common in Ireland. Several financial bills were voked to rebellion, had on that occasion at least the merit of having resisted the temptation to act against their allegiance. 1805 brought in, which afterwards passed into laws : viz. an Act for continuing and amending several Acts for regulating and securing the collection of the duties on spirituous liquors distilled in Ireland, and warehousing such spirits for exportation: and a like Act, with reference to other duties on firehearth, dwelling-houses, coaches, and other carriages, male servants, horses, and dogs; another, as to papers plain and printed or stained: an Act for charging additional duties on Spanish red wines: a further Act for better collecting and securing the revenue of Customs and Excise, and for preventing frauds therein. With all this legislative caution, any further recurrence of deficiency or arrear in the revenue would seem impossible, the more particularly so, as it was managed by Mr. Foster, who valued himself. for his pre-eminent knowledge of the commercial and fiscal interests of his country. Mr. Fitzgerald manifested in many instances a faithful vigilance to the internal interests of his country: a merit not frequently observable in the Irish Members. He gave notice in the House, that after the Easter recess he intended to move for an account of the money raised by Grand Jury presentments in Ireland for the last three years. A more important subject of regulation could not arrest the attention of the Legislature. In the course of the two last years, above a million sterling had been levied for the repair of roads in that. country*. * There is not so crying a source of abuse and jobbing in all Ireland as the system of Grand Jury presentments, and the inter |