conciliated the affections of the catholicks for the time. This, however, was not the only subject of complaint. There were other abuses in Ireland, of which the people did bitterly complain; and when the coalition took place, in July last, however much I might lament that event, I certainly did think it might produce this good effect that the corrupt administration of Ireland would be radically reformed, and that possibly as much might be gained to liberty there as seemed to be lost to it here. That was in fact near being the case, when all of a sudden things unfortunately took a different turn.

Without entering into the question-Who is to blame? I ask the king's ministers, and defy them to give me any answer but one, whether Ireland is not at present in a state of irritation? whether she is not in a state of danger? And if she is in such a situation as to give just cause of alarm to every friend of the country, whether this state has not been occasioned solely by his majesty's ministers? Some people may say: "It is owing to the ministers here:" others" to the ministers there." But I defy any man to say that the present state of that countrywhether it be owing to the duke of Portland I know not-whether it be owing to the right honourable gentleman opposite to me, or to earl Fitzwilliam, I know not. But of this I am certain, that it is entirely owing to the improper conduct of the king's mi. nisters. Let ministers themselves explain, and point out to the publick those individuals on whom they say blame ought to attach; but let them deny this fact if they can: that the present irritated state of Ireland has arisen solely from the conduct of ministers there or in this country; although I have little doubt in my own mind to which of them it is owing. Earl Fitzwilliam is sent over as lord lieutenant to Ireland, justly popular from his personal character, and more so from his connexion with a part of the ministry here, supposed to be favourable to the claims of Ireland. He arrives, he consults with men to whom the people of Ireland had been long accustomed to look up with confidence; he is adored, he is idolized

レ

to such a degree, that the people of Ireland join with him in the absurd cry of war! Nothing but earl Fitzwilliam's popularity, nothing but his personal character, and his connexion with that part of the ministry here, who were supposed to be friendly to the claims of the people of Ireland, could have induced them to join in that cry. What happens? Earl Fitzwilliam states from the throne the general wishes of his majesty for carrying on the war; that it is intended to give emancipation to the Roman catholicks of Ireland. And although it is not usual for his majesty's speech to state specifically the topicks to which it recommends the attention of parliament; yet this the lord lieutenant states in very distinct terms. [It was intimated from the ministerial side of the house that this was not so.] It was so understood, continued Mr. Fox, or, if you please, it was so misunderstood in the Irish parliament. They are told that abuses are to be reformed; they see the most respected men in the country daily raising up in the house of commons to propose the reform of abuses; they see those measures attended with fewer dismissals from office undoubtedly than the people could have wished, but with the dismissal of several persons known to be connected with the old abuses, They consider all this as the omen of approaching liberty; and that all the people of Ireland, without distinction, are about to enjoy those rights and privileges to which they are in justice entitled, and which they ought always to have enjoyed. All this passes, day after day, in the face of the world, without the least opposition on the part of the cabinet of Great Britain. What follows? Great supplies are called for by his majesty; and the Irish parliament vote supplies exceeding, in an enormous degree, any ever voted in any former period, The Irish, in high expectation of the promised reform of abuses, with a degree of imprudence, not perhaps strictly justifiable on the sober and cautious principle that reform and supply should go hand in hand (but it is the character of the nation to be more generous than prudent)

"We

granted the supplies before the promise was fulfilled. The moment these enormous supplies are granted, the cup is dashed from their lips; their eager and excited hopes are blasted; and they are told : have got your money; you may now seek for your reform where you can." The ministers here then quarrel with this popular lord lieutenant, this favourite friend of their own, whose personal character did more for the coalition than the characters of all the other ministers united. I say, that the personal character alone of lord Fitzwilliam did more for the coalition than the characters of the whole cabinet of Great Britain united could do; it made the coalition popular, because, from his accession it was supposed to be pure. They give up, however, this popular friend, whom but a few months before they had taken more pains to gain than all the rest who joined them either then or afterwards. Even earl Fitzwilliam they gave up rather than that Ireland should receive from this country the benefits to which she is in common justice entitled; and in the hopes of which she had voted for the service of his majesty such large and liberal supplies.

Sir, I may be told " that this lord lieutenant gave hopes and promises which he was not authorized to give." To that I answer, that from my knowledge of him, I do not believe it. But suppose it were so; what is that to us? what is that to this house? Is it not a matter of total indifference to us where the blame lies? Is not Ireland in danger? No man will deny it; and that is sufficient for my purpose. The blame attaches either on the ministers in Ireland, or on the ministers here; and if this house does not institute an inquiry, and explain clearly and satisfactorily to the publick who has been the cause of this alarming danger, we may be responsible for the dimemberment of the British empire. It may be supposed that this is one of those questions on which I have strong personal partialities. I admit it. I believe I shall never be able to devest myself of them; and I am perfectly convinced that Earl Fitzwilliam's conduct in this particular instance has been agreeable to the uniform tenour of his whole life. I firmly believe that he has acted fairly and honourably, and agreeably to what was understood between him and his colleagues in the British cabinet. This conviction is matter of great private satisfaction to me, but it is nothing to the publick, or to this house. That great and imminent danger has been incurred is undeniable; and this house cannot refuse to inquire into the cause of the danger, with a view to discover the means of averting it, without betraying one of its most important trusts. I call not for this inquiry to clear the character of this or that minister, in order to attach blame to another. The great duty of this house is to show to the people of England, by whose fault this danger has been created.

The Roman Catholicks of Ireland make about three fourths of the people, and I am happy to see that the Roman Catholicks and Protestants now only make one party. I do not, therefore, dread any rupture between the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants. The parties now to be dreaded in Ireland are, on the one hand, a few people holding places of great emolument, and supporting corruption and abuses; and on the other, the Irish nation. The Protestants are as much interested in this great business of reform as the Roman Catholicks. They have but one great common interest, to preserve that country against a corrupt and oppressive administration. I no longer dread any danger to Ireland from disputes between the Roman Catholicks and the Protestants. But I dread that the Irish nation, in consequence of the support of abuses and corruption, may become less connected with, and less attached to, the English nation. I dread the alienation of the Irish people from the English government. Many gentlemen in this country, who have not taken all the pains they might to examine into the subject, may imagine that the government of Ireland, because consisting of king, lords, and commons, nearly resembles that of Great Britain. That however is by no means the case. These three branches of the Irish constitution, although the same in name with the three branches of the British constitution, differ materially in their composition; and the government of Ireland varies in many other respects from the government of this country. I dare say also, that some gentlemen know so little of what has passed in Ireland since the year 1793, as to imagine that the Roman Catholicks are now nearly on the same footing with the Protestants; and that, since the above period, they have suffered no persecutions or exclusions. If there is any man who thinks so, he grossly deceives himself. But passing over these circumstances, is it not self-evident, that the danger arising from the present state of Ireland, has been created by some of the king's ministers? Let the house go into an inquiry, and they will clearly see on whom punishment ought to fall. If the ministers in Ireland are guilty, let them be punished: or, if his majesty's ministers here, which is much more probable, have been the cause of this irritation, let punishment fall upon them. If Earl Fitzwilliam, rashly and wantonly running after popularity, has sacrificed the real interests of that country, he deserves the severest censure, and the most rigorous proceedings of this house against him. But I am confident that this is not the fact. If upon an inquiry, by this house, it shall appear, that he has been trifled with, and shuffled out of his measures and situation by ministers here, in order to serve their own base purposes; if it shall appear that he has acted on the principles of prudence and patriotism, and that his government was founded on principles which tended to preserve the connexion between the two countries, what censure, what punishment, can be too severe for those who have been the authors of such shuffling and of such duplicity? That the whole blame in this business is to be imputed to his majesty's ministers, is a matter about which no man living can dispute. It may be said, perhaps, that some of the king's ministers are more and others less blameable. If that is so, let us go into a committee, and we shall be able to ascertain with accuracy the differ