against the principles they had imbibed, and the prejudices by which they were guided, was an idea which history and human nature proved to be absurd. What, said Mr. Fox, is the actual situation of affairs with respect to Ireland? You have raised enormous burthens both in England and Ireland; you have produced great discontents. In fact, we are now precisely at the point in which we stood, in 1774, with America; and, the question is, whether we are to attempt to retain Ireland by force, instead of gaining her by concessions, and a full communication of all the bless ings of a free constitution? Mr. Fox, having spoken highly of the administration and popularity of the earl Fitzwilliam, in Ireland, said, that he could scarcely conceive that any objection could be urged against the motion he was about to make, in point of form. The interests of this country and of Ireland were the same. Its affairs were conducted by ministers, and the British cabinet, and it was the privilege of that house to advise his majesty. If he were to justify the measure by precedent, he might quote the case of an impeachment of the earl of Lauderdale, by the English parliament, before the union, for the conduct of the government of Scotland. But why, said Mr. Fox, should I speak of forms, when the consequences of the discontents in Ireland may be a contest to be supported by Englishmen, and English money? I shall therefore move,

"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to take into his royal consideration the disturbed state of his kingdom of Ireland, and to adopt such heal

ing and lenient measures as may appear to his majesty's wisdom best calculated to restore tranquillity, and to conciliate the affections of all descriptions of his majesty's subjects, in that kingdom, to his majesty's person and government." This motion was seconded, in a short, but very eligant as well as animated, speech, by

Sir Francis Burdett, who said, whoever bas the slightest information, concerning the situation of Ireland, must admit the propriety of this motion; but, without having been an eye-witness to the effects produced by the measures of the minister of that country, it is impossible to have an adequate idea of the magnitude of the evils arising from them. Whoever has seen Ireland, has seen a country where the fields are desolated, and the prisons overflowing with the victims of oppression; has seen the shocking contrast between a profligate extravagant government and an enslaved and impoverished people. One person now immured within the wails of a dungeon in Dublin Castle, I have the honour to be connected with : for honour as well as happiness I shall ever esteem it. After a warm panegyric on the public and private virtues of Mr. O'Connor, sir Francis said, when such men become objects of hatred, and fear to government, it is not difficult to ascertain the nature of that government. But perhaps, sir, I may be charged with speaking more like a discontented Irishman than a true friend to the interests of England. Sir, I speak like a friend to humanity and liberty, and like an enemy to cruelty and oppression. I believe the interests of Ireland and of this country to be the same. I believe it

for

for the interest of both countries, that both should be free. What was said, by a great man, respecting America is still more applicable with respect to Ireland: "I rejoice, said lord Chatham, in the resistance of America, because I believe three millions of men enslaved in that country would become the proper est instruments for enslaving this." There is, sir, in my opinion, one way, and only one, for saving Ire land and England: that is to divest the present minister of that power which he has so long and so fatally abused, and to call him to a strict account for his conduct, before the tribunal of his country. If we have not resolution, if we have not energy, if we have not the means to accomplish this, I know not whether the country can be saved; but this I know, that it is not worth saving. After the able speech that we have just heard, I shall content myself with seconding the motion.

Mr. Pitt asked Mr. Fox whether the parliament, by which the independence of Ireland was recognized, was more accommodating to the wishes of the dissenters of the north, or to the catholics of the south,than those of a subsequent period? Quite the contrary. Whatever altera tion had since taken place tended more and more to include both dissenters and catholics within the pale of both civil and political liberty, than the principle recognized in 1782. But the main pillar of his defence of ministers, in their conduct towards Ireland, and ground of his objection to the present motion, was the unconstitutionality, the impropriety, and the dangers, to be apprehended from the interference of the British parliament

in the affairs of Ireland; topics on which he expatiated with his usual ability; but in which it is unneces sary to follow him, as we have seen them already discussed in the debates in the upper house. As to the main concession to be made, by way of remedy to the discontents and disturbances in Ireland, that of allowing to the catholics the privi lege of sitting in parliament, this could not be done, without reversing the whole of its present form, and new-modelling the constitution from beginning to end: and, to make this change when such principles were abroad in the world, and were even prevalent in the country in which we lived, would be attended with the most dangerons consequences.

Colonel Fullarton, who had just come from Scotland, and that part of it which almost touches on Ireland, was astonished to find, in the metropolis, such an apparent indifference to the most alarming dangers; and wondered that so much time should be spent in debate, and so little a military preparation. General Hoche would find, in Ulster alone, 50,000 Irishmen united, with pikes in their hands, and arms concealed, busily employed in secret discipline, in order to qualify themselves for re-inforcing the French

Lord Hawkesbury repeated and applauded the arguments of Mr. Pitt.

Mr. Curwen thought that the present motion was so far from being mischievous, that even the discussion it had occasioned, would do good, inasmuch as it would shew the Irish nation, that there was a part, at least, of the British parliament, who were mindful of their interests.

Lord Wycombe thought that the disturbances, which had taken place in Ireland, manifestly proved a disaffection to the British government. Conciliation, instead of rigqur, should have been tried; for it was time enough to employ force when mildness failed. He could have wished that the Irish parliament had been left, for the settlement of affairs, to themselves. But that, he well knew that, being for the most part, at the beck of the English cabinet,theyhad lost the confidence of the nation,

He really dreaded that, if the Bri tish parliament did not interfere, we might lose Ireland altogether: a loss that would be more severe to us than the loss of America.

Mr. Benjamin Hobhouse made the following shrewd remark; that the chancellor of the exchequer seemed to have presumed in the whole train of his reasoning, that it was the object of the present motion to request the king's interference, exclusively of his Irish parliament. No, sir. It only prays his majesty, in connexion with the Irish legislature, to adopt measures of a lenient nature, with a view to ap pease the unhappy spirit of discontent which prevailed throughout the country.

Mr. Fox made some observations in reply to the principal arguments that had been advanced against his motion: on which the house di, vided, Ayes, 84; Noes, 220,

CHAP.

Britain at the same time in the stormy year, 1797, it was not possible that government, to whom, in every country, the people are apt to impute more than a just share of either the good or the evil that befalls them, could escape public and severe animadversion. Petitions were presented for the removal of his majesty's ministers, from almost every county, city, and town of note in England and Ireland.* The general dissatisfaction at the conduct of ministers, which, from the number and tenor of these petitions, appeared to prevail throughout the nation, encouraged the oppositionparty, in parliament, to bring forward motions for a change in the administration. On the 27th of March, the earl of Suffolk declared, in the house of peers, that he considered it as his duty to himself, his family, his king, and his country, to move, "That a humble address might be addressed to his majesty, humbly requesting him to dismiss from his councils, his minister, the Arst lord of the treasury, whose per

of the conduce of the country nicious measures had deprived him

Lord Grenville opposed this motion, and warmly defended his relation and friend, who, he contended, had neither lost the confidence of the most respectable part of the public, nor deserved to do so. That the allies had not been so successful as they expected, he was ready to admit; and also that such accidents had happened as were incidental to all wars: but he hoped all parties would acknowledge that the exertions of this country had been unparalleled in the page of history, and had been attended with unparalleled success. Our naval victories had been more brilliant than ever before distinguished any age; and it appeared peculiarly hard, that all the honour, praise, and glory, should be reaped by individuals, whilst the censure, and all the responsibility were thrown on minis

ters.

The duke of Norfolk, in answer to lord Grenville, who had insinuaated that the charges brought against Mr. Pitt, were not substantiated on facts, said that proofs of his misma▾

nagement

nagement and misconduct w were every where. They presented them selves to every eye, and made an impression on every heart. They composed a living epitaph on the infatuation of ministers, and, in the language applied to the memory of sir Christopher Wren, pointing to the cathedral of St. Paul's, he might exclaim

Si monumentum quæris circumspice, The motion was farther supported by the earl of Derby, the earl of Moira, the earl of Carlisle, and the duke of Bedford: but opposed briefly, and on the usual grounds of defence, by lord Romney, the marquis of Townshend, the earl of Warwick, and again by lord Grenville. The most remarkable circumstance that occurred in the course of this short discussion on the conduct of ministers, and the state of the nation, was, a very generous plan for carrying on the war, suggested by lord Romney. This was to set on foot a subscription for a voluntary gift, as far as the generosity and circumstances of individuals would allow. He would himself subscribe five thousand pounds, and thought that there would be easily found a hundred thousand who would subscribe, each their one hundred, besides others who would subscribe small sums. Such a measure, if carried into execution, would counteract any impression which might be made on the French government to our disadvantage by the desponding ideas of some as to our state, or by the language of others as to the conduct of our ministers.

Lord Moira applauded the plan af lord Romney, and did not doubt but it might produce a considerable sum of money: but it was a question how far the house of commons might

approve of money being raised to carry on the war, through any other channel than their own.

The marquis of Lansdowne said, on this subject, that any one who perused the army extraordinaries would find millions squandered in the most improvident manner, and asked, what the noble lord's subscription of 50001. would do to stop such flood-gates? As to the motion for dismissing the minister, he did not much approve of it. The change he desired was not a change of men, but in the system of governmeat, which ought to be conducted on the old constitutional principles of the country.

On a division of the house, there appeared for lord Suffolk's motion, 16; against it, 86.

A motion for the dismissal, not particularly of the first lord of the treasury, but of his majesty's ministers in general, was made in the house of commons, on the 19th of May, by alderman Combe, who, stated it to be the general opinion of the people of this country, as well as that of his constituents, that the calamities which pressed so hard upon the people were, in a great measure, if not wholly, owing to the ministers having plunged us inte the present war. This, he would not deny, at the commencement, appeared to be popular: but it had long ceased to be so; to which nothing had contributed so much as the incapacity of those who carried it on. The public, however, had never been informed of the real or even ostensible ground on which it had been undertaken : nor had they been able to obtain any fixed ar settled principle by which their governors had been guided. Sometimes we were said to fight for one purpose,