58 FITZWILLIAM'S ADMINISTRATION BOOK IV. LA.D. 1795 It was clearly understood that all restrictions on the Catholics that were not absolutely necessary for the safety of the State should be done away. . . . The Popery Laws arose from fear of Popish pretensions, which now had no existence, or at least were no longer dangerous.1 . When the noble Earl arrived in Ireland, Mr. Grattan, no doubt from well-understood instructions, stood forward and stated that the Catholics were to be relieved. . . . The Irish Parliament heard the tidings with joy, and so did the public. They consented to a most lavish taxation without a murmur. The Catholics, brought to this pitch of expectancy, found on a sudden the Lord Lieutenant recalled, and all their hopes vanish. The cup was dashed from their lips, and the whole country thrown into confusion.'s The Earl of Coventry objected 'that this matter rested entirely on the prerogative of the Crown, and was not a subject for Parliamentary inquiry any more than any other Cabinet secret.' Earl Fitzwilliam complained 'that he stood charged not by words, but by facts, and called upon their Lordships to protect his honour and reputation-all that he asked was that the cause of his removal be laid before them.'5 The Earl of Guildford held that 'they were bound to go into this inquiry. Ireland had been plunged into discontent and distrust, if not alienation and despair. Was it not fitting that the House should inquire who were the authors of this calamity ? '6 Earl of Westmoreland, formerly Lord Lieutenant, attacked Fitzwilliam's Administration, in the sudden dismissal of Mr. Beresford 'for imputed malversation." He arrived on a Sunday, and he had so completed his investigations that he dismissed him on the Wednesday following!' As to Emancipation, 'the Catholics had already received concessions for which they were grateful; and, unless they had been 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xxxi. p. 1499. 2 Ibid. p. 1500. 8 Ibid. p. 1501. CHAP. IV. A.D. 1795 PROTEST AGAINST THE RECALL 59 urged on by others, they would not have attempted to disturb the public tranquillity."1 Earl Fitzwilliam, in reply and in self-defence, declared 'that he was now convinced of the fact that the Catholic Question was not the genuine cause of his recall. . . . For connecting myself with Grattan was I dismissed, who taught all Ireland to see and feel that their best interest would always be to stand or fall by Great Britain.2. . . I went out expressly authorised to complete the measure of 1793. That measure originated in England; and, when the Coalition took place in July last, every Catholic in Ireland naturally looked for the completion of the system by the men who had begun it, which would accomplish what they called their Emancipation. . . . It was felt that there could be no danger to the State from their political doctrines. In fact, the religious tests of former days were only required as evidences of political creeds; and now that the occasions that gave them birth were past, they ought to disappear.'s The Lords, however, refused the motion by a substantial majority of 75; and in the 'Protest against the Recall,' which they entered in the Journals, Ponsonby and Fitzwilliam discussed the whole situation under fifteen heads. They declared their policy, with regard to Ireland, to be 'the removal of all civil restrictions made in consequence of religious differences,'* and they based it upon Parliamentary Declarations as to 'the allegiance and fidelity of Roman Catholics.' They quoted (1) the Preamble to the Act of 17th and 18th George III. c. 40: 'Whereas, from their uniform behaviour for a long series of years, it appears reasonable and expedient to relax the same (penalties and incapacities of Roman Catholics), and it must tend not only to the cultivation and improvement of this kingdom, but to the prosperity and strength of all his Majesty's dominions, that his subjects of • Ibid. p. 1525. 2 Ibid. p. 1515. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xxxi. p. 1511. 3 Ibid. p. 1516. 60 RELAXATIONS OF PENAL LAWS BOOK IV. LA.D. 1795 all denominations should enjoy the benefits of our free Constitution, and should be bound to each other by mutual interest and mutual affection." Then (2) the Act of 21st and 22d George III. c. 24, declaring 'that Roman Catholics, on taking the test aforesaid, ought to be considered as good and loyal subjects to his Majesty, his Crown, and Government; and that the continuance of laws formerly enacted, and then in force, against persons of the Popish Religion, is therefore unnecessary, in respect to those who have taken, or shall take, the said Oath, and is injurious to the real welfare and prosperity of the kingdom of Ireland.' They pointed out, further, 'that the first year of relaxation virtually began in 1773; and that it was, therefore, twenty years before the passing of the large Capacitating Act of 1793; and that, during all that prolonged period, their allegiance was thus recognised, and their reciprocal right to protection upon taking these appointed Oaths.'2 To this protest Fitzwilliam added a personal postscript,— 'that he stands for the justice and the policy of removing the few feeble, miserable, inefficacious, but invidious restrictions that remain on the Catholics of Ireland,—as wholly useless for any good purpose, but powerful in causing discontent, both with regard to Government and Parliament,-as furnishing handles of oppression to the malevolent,—and as supplying pretexts for disorder to the turbulent and seditious.'s In the House of Commons, a few days later, Mr. Jekyll was more successful. He moved for the 'Correspondence' too, and carried it in the affirmative by 188 to 43. He said that, of four millions in Ireland, three and a half millions were Roman Catholics,' and he brusquely wondered 'what dangers would arise to the Protestants of Ireland from the participation of privileges with their Catholic brethren?' Fox declared that the noble Earl Fitzwilliam was the 2 Ibid. p. 1526. 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xxxi. p. 1526. CHAP. IV. A.D. 1798] REBELLION IN IRELAND 61 only person who had the good fortune to obtain the applause of all the Catholics and all the Dissenters of Ireland; the only person who, since the Accession of the House of Brunswick, had been able to unite all parties in that kingdom."1 Pitt warned them against 'a step at once indelicate and dangerous, to open up the secret transactions of Government.2 ... He admitted that no Prerogative could absolutely bar the inquisitorial function of the House; but a special case must be made out, of positive danger, or public misconduct and delinquency. . . . As to the Catholic Question, suppose their examination came on while the same question was pending in the Parliament of Ireland; if the decision was the same, still it was a wound to that independent Parliament; if the decision were different, that would be an impeachment of the independence of the Parliament of Ireland. . . . What would be the situation of Ministers, to advise his Majesty to reject as King of England, that which, as King of Ireland, he might feel himself engaged to assent to? Did those who wished the House to adopt this mode really mean to promote a harmonious connection between that country and this ?'4 For the next three years 'the state of Ireland' was the stock subject of burning debates in every session of Parliament, until in 1798 the REBELLION openly broke out there, provoked by many cruel oppressions on the one side, and rendering back many fiendish retaliations on the other.5 The echo of these events makes itself heard still in a 'motion for a Change of System in Ireland,' which we meet on the Journals of the House of Commons for that year. It was proposed by Lord George Cavendish, on June 22nd, and the ground was felt to be so delicate, 'that all strangers were 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xxxi. p. 1542. 5 Ibid. vols. xxxii. and xxxiii. 2 Ibid. p. 1550. • Ibid. p. 1554. 62 CHANGE OF SYSTEM FOR IRELAND [BOOK IV. LA.D. 1798 first excluded." In a series of resolutions the third ran thus: (3) 'That it is the opinion of this House that we should be at all times ready, by all just means, to maintain the unity of the British Empire, and our connection with Ireland as an integral part of that Empire; yet we never can believe that it is his Majesty's wish to support or countenance the principle of permanently governing that country as a conquered or hostile country-a principle no less hostile to the fundamental maxims of universal justice than to the mutual interests of the two kingdoms ;'-and the fourth declared: (4) 'That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to advise his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to repeat the recommendation he made through the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Legislature of that kingdom, in 1793, "Seriously to consider the situation of the Irish Catholics, and to consider it with liberality, for the purpose of strengthening and cementing a genuine sentiment among all the classes and descriptions of his Majesty's subjects in support of the Established Constitution."'8 But these proposals were, under the heat of passions kindled by the Irish Revolt, rejected by the startling majority of 212 against 66. Lord Bessborough also tried his hand in the Upper House, on June 27th, to move them to pledge themselves in favour of 'a System of Conciliation' so soon as the present Rebellion had been 'suppressed.' But that seemed to be outrunning even the proverb about catching time by the forelock; for what if the Rebellion refused to be suppressed? that, too, would necessitate 'a change of system.' No better fate awaited the double-barreled motion, fired off by Fox in the Commons, and by the Duke of Bedford in the Lords, and founded upon rumours of atrocities across the Channel. It declared that a system of Coercion had 1 Hansard's P. H. vol. xxxiii. p. 1513. 2 Ibid. p. 1515. |