views of Irish officials for the information of His Majesty. With these general directions he arrived in Ireland, and was welcomed with acclamation. The people were led to believe they had only to persevere in their demands and they would be granted. Mr. Grattan saw again within his reach the opportunity which he had lost in the Buckingham crisis. He, and those who acted with him, persuaded the Viceroy to take decided action. Lord Fitzwilliam believed himself authorized to remove certain servants of the Crown. John Beresford, chief commissioner of Customs, was dismissed, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General were noticed to leave as soon as the proper consent could be received. Fitz-Gibbon, bold and defiant, was for the present beyond their reach. These were acts of the greatest encouragement to the expectant Catholic party. On the 22nd of January, 1795, Lord Fitzwilliam opened the Session. He made a long speech in which he carefully avoided the object for which he was supposed to have been specially sent. The public were content to wait. On the 11th of February Mr. Grattan moved to introduce a Bill to repeal the Police Bill. On the 12th he also moved to bring in a Bill "for repeal of Catholic disabilities;" leave was given, and Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Knox were ordered to prepare the same. The hopes of the Catholics ran high. In anticipation of their complete success, the Opposition were ready with any sum asked for. £200,000 was granted for the Fleet; the defences of the country having now assumed additional importance. In the meantime Beresford had been to England; he had seen the Duke of Portland, and explained matters to Pitt. He returned to Ireland and resumed his place at the Revenue Board. The Law Officers no longer feared change, but as yet their was no public avowal to indicate dissent. News reached London of the doings on the 12th It was stated that the outlines of Grattan's Bill had been laid before Parliament with the consent of the Viceroy, without previous consultation with the Cabinet. On the 5th of February the King was informed, "to his great astonishment," of the change in Irish Policy. He refused his assent, and justified the objections which had been urged by the old servants of the Crown. He left to Pitt and Portland the alternative of either recalling Fitzwilliam, or of

allowing him to remain, forbidden to sanction concessions which it had been declared it was his mission to grant. Fitzwilliam suspected that the Ministers had other views. He wrote to Lord Spenser: "You are thinking of a union between the two Kingdoms as a good to be expected from deferring the concession. Depend on the hope of that, and it will be the union of Ireland, not with England, but with France." On the 21st of February Lord Fitzwilliam was authorised to resign, "the manner being left to his own discretion." It is impossible to over-estimate the effects of this movement. It was asserted the people had been betrayed, that it was expected that the grant of supplies and the redress of grievance swould go hand in hand; that on the faith of promises, the largest sums ever asked for had been given. Sir Lawrence Parsons said: "It now appeared that the people had been duped, that nothing was to be done. If the British Minister persisted in such infatuation, discontent would be at its height; the army must be increased, and every man have dragoons in his house." He proposed the old plan of 1779 and 1789,—a short Money Bill: an angry debate with mutual recriminations followed, and the motion was defeated by 146-24. Mr. Conolly proposed Resolutions in reference to the Viceroy, which were carried. [App. 20.]

As might be expected, Earl Fitzwilliam's recall was a sore disappointment to many, and the Catholic Committee at once re-assembled. The dissatisfied of both sides hastened to the city, hoping that in an anticipated conflict they might gain something. Grattan once more saw power slip from his grasp. He condescended to reply to an address in which threats were held out towards any successor of Lord Fitzwilliam. He answered: Emancipation will still pass; it might be the death of one Viceroy, but it would be the peace-offering of another."* He declared that, notwithstanding, he would proceed with his Bills, and added, "in recalling Fitzwilliam, England has planted a dagger in Ireland's heart." [App. 21.] Lord Fitzwilliam took his departure from Ireland in the midst of every demonstration of public mourning.

66

Plow. vol. ii. February 27, 1795.

On the 31st March Lord Camden arrived as Lord Fitzwilliam's successor. He made his entry without official announcement, so there was no opportunity for riot. As if to give effect to Grattan's observation, a disorderly mob thronged the neighbourhood of the Castle. It had become known that His Excellency was within, and that the Chancellor, Council, and Lords Justices would return to their homes when the ceremony of swearing-in was complete. The outrages intended for the Viceroy were transferred to them. The Primate's carriage was injured; he escaped. Fitz-Gibbon was followed, was struck on the forehead and wounded, and was with difficulty rescued. The mob attacked the Speaker's house and became generally riotous. They were at last fired on by the troops, some few being killed and many wounded before quiet was restored.

The recall of Lord Fitzwilliam led to much discussion. The Catholic party, in the bitterness of their disappointment, were ready for any course which would retaliate on the Government. On the 21st April, Mr. Grattan moved for "a Committee to inquire into the state of the nation;" he reviewed the circumstances attending the recent change of Viceroy, and declared it "to be a shock to the passions and affections of the country, coming at a moment when she was calling forth all her strength to assist Great Britain, under the auspices of a Chief Governor whom she venerated, and just after her Parliament had voted the largest supply which any Minister had ever called for, on the faith of those measures which His Excellency was known to have designed." Mr. Stewart (afterwards Lord Castlereagh), replied in very matter-of-fact language, and informed the House that, on Lord Fitzwilliam's arrival, his confidential friends had declared that no removals would take place. He had listened to the advice of certain men who had given him the most mistaken counsel. They were deceived if they thought that he alone was fit to conduct a mild Government; the present Chief Governor was fully adequate to it; the large supplies had been voted after Lord Fitzwilliam's recall was generally known; and he concluded: "In his opinion, if Parliamentary Reform or the Repeal of the Convention Act were in the contemplation of the late Ministers, he rejoiced they were no longer in possession of power." The motion was lost by 158-48.

Mr. Grattan stood committed to the passing of some measure of Catholic Relief. The Roman Catholic Prelates were in favour of an Educational establishment for their clergy and laymen. The former, they pointed out in their correspondence and petitions, were educated in France, where they imbibed the doctrines then so perniciously at work. They enlarged on the advantages of their being removed from such influence, and cultivating a sense

66

of loyalty at home.”* Their arguments were unanswerable, and

their requests not unreasonable. On the 24th of April Mr. Pelham introduced a Bill "for the establishment of a Roman Catholic College and an Endowment for the same." Mr. Grattan presented a petition in opposition, which set forth "the inexpediency of establishing an Educational establishment from which Protestants should be excluded, inasmuch as it tended to perpetuate the line of religious separation.” The Catholics having recently been admitted into Trinity College, saw, with deep concern, the principles of separation revived and re-enacted. This conflict of opinion fairly illustrates the difficulty to be encountered in the settlement of such questions. Mr. Pelham's proposals were carried, Mr. Grattan supporting them, and thus originated the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth.†

The Roman Catholic Bill, from which so much was expected, came on for discussion on the 4th of May, During the Fitzwilliam administration it had been designed under the sanction of the Catholic Convention, and had been promised as a measure of complete Emancipation, which would open to Catholics, equally with Protestants, the honours of the State. The recall of Fitzwilliam damped the Catholic anticipations of its being accepted by the House, Mr. Grattan thought retreat would prove more disastrous than defeat, and forced the discussion; he spoke with the consciousness of a losing cause, and the desperate valour of one who felt it was his last chance of obtaining for the Catholics the redress demanded. He was met by a direct proposition from the Solicitor-General (Toler)," that the Bill be rejected." The issue was thereby narrowed to the question: Were Catholics to

have seats in Parliament? All the old arguments, with the new venom which recent disturbances supplied, were urged against the Bill, but the Commons were neither to be intimidated nor persuaded, and rejected it by 155-84.

Parliament in these critical times had duties beyond the routine business of the House. Secret Committees of both Houses had been sitting to inquire into the causes of dissatisfaction. [App. 22.] Both had reported, and the Attorney-General was well informed of what was progressing throughout the country. He had given notice of his intention to introduce two Bills, one* "To prevent insurrections and riots," and the other to "Indemnify certain magistrates, and others, who, in their exertions to preserve public tranquillity, had acted against the forms and rules of law." This latter was more particularly intended for the protection of Lord Carhampton, the Irish Commander-in-Chief, who, when the "Defenders" in Kildare attacked magistrates, had arrested their leaders, placed them on board a tender in Sligo, and sent them to serve in the Navy. Mr. Grattan moved that during the debate on the Bill the judges should attend to advise the House; his motion was rejected. Both Bills became law. [App. 23.]

On the 13th of October Mr. Grattan again renewed his appeal for Emancipation, but was defeated by 149—12; evidence that the House was weary of the discussions. On the 14th the Attorney-General asked Parliament to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, a measure rendered necessary by a threatened descent of the French on the Irish coast, and the known sympathies and correspondence of the disaffected. Mr. Curran described the method of its passing§:-" At two o'clock in the morning the House was moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Habeas Corpus Act; at five minutes past two the Bill was ordered to be read a first time; and after a grave and mature deliberation, the Bill was ordered to be read, and was read a second time, at ten minutes after two. Its preamble was then fully considered and approved of, and at fifteen minutes after two

* 36 Geo. III. c. 20,
+ 17 Par. Deb.,

p. 80.

† 36 Geo. III. c. 6.

§ 17 Par. Deb., p. 80.