Page images
PDF
EPUB

BRIBERY IN IRELAND.

the statesmen of the revolution.

Even Newcastle

himself, who reduced bribery and corruption to a system, and who hardly knew any other mode of government, was personally unsullied; and, far from profiting by a command of political patronage which has never been equalled, a great part of his private estate was in this manner sacrificed to what he considered the public service. But the families which governed Ireland, though they adopted the party titles of Whig and Tory, regarded political power merely as a means of obtaining for themselves and their connections. titles, offices, emoluments and advantages of every description at the public expense. Instances are related of regiments of militia raised for the sole object of patronage, of barracks erected to improve the property of a member or friend of the ruling family; of canals cut in the wrong direction for a similar purpose. The Irish pension. list was a proverb. Jobs, which, in the days of the Walpoles and the Pelhams, could not be attempted in England, were not considered too gross for Ireland.b Political spies, foreigners

b The memoirs of Lord Chesterfield and the Duke of Bedford, both of whom were Irish Viceroys, contain numerous passages illustrative of the system. The following is from the Duke's Correspondence: As things are circumstanced, business may be easily carried on the next session; but the leading people must have douceurs, a great many of which I must, at a proper time, lay before his Majesty. By these means he may do what he pleases with this country. The Princess of Hesse may have her pension of five thousand pounds; but other things of the like

[blocks in formation]

289

Ch. 38.

1795

290

1795

DEBASEMENT OF THE IRISH MEMBERS.

whose services could not be set forth, and castoff mistresses were placed on the Irish establishment, though not always without murmurs from the ruling families, who thought their domain unduly invaded. The Irish oligarchy had no excuse for nor indeed did they ever pretend to excuse their system of corruption. They had no disputed succession to deal with; no party in the state actively and avowedly engaged in behalf of the exiled family; no double-faced friends more dangerous than open enemies; no waiters upon providence uncertain to which side their private interests should incline them. All these were the cares of English statesmen, and the justification of the means which they employed. But what with English statesmen were means justified only by the end, were, with Irish politicians, the end itself. Political power, on the other side of St. George's Channel, was sought with no other object than the advancement of private interest. Any pretence of public spirit was treated as cant and hypocrisy. "Did I ever give an honest vote in my life?" said an honourable member, whose family was maintained at the public charge, and the House rang with applauding laughter.

с

The English Government were content that the affairs of Ireland should be administered after this fashion. I have shown how one English secretary

nature must be given in Ireland.' May 24th, 1758.—Bedford Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 335.

e WAKEFIELD'S Account of Ireland, vol. ii. p.802.

UNIVERSALITY OF IRISH CORRUPTION.

1795

291

to the Lord Lieutenant, with official aptitude, Ch. 38. gauged the exact measure of Irish corruption, and drew up for the information of his chief, a report, exhibiting, in the tabular form, the terms and conditions on which alone the King's Government in Ireland was to be carried on.d

the Beresfords,

Among the native families, through whose Influence of agency this system of jobbery and corruption had from time to time been worked, the family of Beresford had long maintained the first place. It has been said, by a well-informed writer, not prone to exaggeration, that one-fourth of all the places in the island were filled by this family." In England, the chief, or some other member of a ruling family, held high office, or filled a conspicuous position in public life; but in Ireland the men of influence were seldom men who sought distinction in Parliament, or even affected the great offices in the state. This was remarkably the case with the Beresfords, none of whom ever attained any position in the House of Commons, or occupied a responsible place in the Government. One of the Lord Lieutenants said that he found the influence of the First Commissioner of Wide Streets, who was the Beresford of the day, more powerful than his own. Lord Fitzwilliam, on his arrival in Dublin, found the chief of the Beresfords filling the subordinate office

a Secretary Orde to Mr. Pitt. p. 264.

e WAKEFIELD, vol. ii. p.384.

Bolton MSS, and note, vol. iii.

f Ibid.

292

Ch. 38

1795

Panic amongst
Irish officers.

DISMISSAL OF BERESFORD.

of Commissioner of Revenue. But this man exer-
cised such influence, that Fitzwilliam called him
the King of Ireland, and the Viceregent was not
disposed to endure such rivalry. One of the
earliest acts of his administration was to dismiss
Beresford from his employment.

This unexampled and unexpected act of power
spread consternation through the whole rank and
file of office. Such an alarm had not been known
since the year 1782, when Lord Temple announced
his intention of bringing a Government defaulter
to account.h Beresford immediately went to
London, not in terms to demand the recall of the
Lord Lieutenant, but to take such measures as
should secure that result.

Animosity
Lord Fitzwilliam had in fact made the two most
against
Fitzwilliam. powerful men in Ireland his mortal enemies. The
Chancellor, by his great ability, and still more by
the force of his character, had almost the weight
and influence of a Prime Minister; and Lord Fitz-
william, it was well known, had, for a long time,
insisted on the removal of the Chancellor, as a
condition of his undertaking the Government of
Ireland. A Beresford only could be a more formi-
dable enemy than Lord Fitzgibbon. The preci-
pitation with which the new lieutenant gave his
sanction to a sweeping measure of Catholic relief,
afforded the pretext, if indeed it did not afford a
sufficient reason, for appealing to the English

8 Courts and Cabinets of George the Third, vol. ii. p. 331.
HARDY'S Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. ii. p. 65.

L

APPEAL TO THE KING.

Cabinet. But the liberality of Mr. Pitt's views on the subject of the Catholic claims, made it very doubtful whether he would convict the Viceroy of an irreparable error, by his hasty concession of civil rights to the great majority of the Irish people. It was suggested, therefore, by the prompt and daring genius of the Chancellor, that the appeal should be carried at once, and in the first resort, to the highest quarter. Fitzgibbon himself had always been an uncompromising opponent of the Catholics, and had gone so far as to declare that emancipation would be incompatible with the connection between Great Britain and Ireland. The King was known not to be favourable to the pretensions of his Romanist subjects; and if his narrow understanding could be possessed with the notion that there was an insuperable bar to these pretensions, the question would be postponed at least for the existing reign, and the wrongs of the Beresfords and the Fitzgibbons would be avenged. Accordingly, it was intimated to his Majesty that grave doubts were entertained by high authority,' whether the concession of the Catholic claims would be compatible with the coronation oath. The King, greatly disturbed, took the opinion of the Chief Justice. Kenyon, as bigoted as his master, and

This idea was Lord Fitzgibbon's and it was probably communicated, through Lord Westmoreland, to the King.'-Auckland Correspondence, vol. iii. p.304. This is confirmed by a passage in Lady Harcourt's papers, MSS.

293

Ch. 38.

1795

« PreviousContinue »