1795.

DEBASEMENT OF THE IRISH MEMBERS.

97

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.*

Beresfords.

Among the native families, through whose agency this system of jobbery and corruption had Influence of the 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 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 * Wakefield's Account of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 802. † Ibid. vol. ii. p. 384.

98

DISMISSAL OF BERESFORD.

CH. XXXVIII.

than his own.* Lord Fitzwilliam, on his arrival in Dublin, found the chief of the Beresfords filling the subordinate office of Commissioner of Revenue. But this man exercised 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 Earl Fitzwilliam's administration was to dismiss Beresford from his employment.

Irish officials.

This unexampled and unexpected act of power Panic amongst 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. 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 against Fitzwilliam.

Lord Fitzwilliam had in fact made the two most 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 Fitzwilliam, 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 formidable enemy than Lord Fitzgibbon. The precipitation 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 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 for his hasty concession of civil rights to the great

* Wakefield, vol. ii. p. 384. t Courts and Cabinets of George the Third, vol. ii. p. 331.

Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, vol. ii. p. 65.

1795.

APPEAL TO THE KING.

99

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 hardly more competent to give an opinion on a high question of constitutional law, still shrunk from committing himself at full length to the doctrine so boldly laid down by the Irish Chancellor. He gave an evasive answer, the effect of which really was that His Majesty might construe the oath in either sense, but that he would do well to follow his own inclinations, and resolve the doubt on the side of intolerance. The Chief Justice probably knew that the King had made up his mind already, and only wanted to have his opinion supported by legal authority. The idea which had been put into his head regarding the coronation oaths had already become a ruling idea,

*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.

100

INDIGNATION OF LORD FITZWILLIAM. CH. XXXVIII.

like that of rescuing the Crown from the dominion of the Whigs, or that of suppressing American liberty. He sent for Pitt, and insisted on the immediate recall of Lord Fitzwilliam. Much as Pitt contemned the reason assigned for this peremptory proceeding, he was in truth not much disposed to resist the pressure put upon him. In sending Fitzwilliam to Ireland, he had, for the first time since he had been at the head of affairs, yielded reluctantly, and with a very bad grace, to the influence of a section of his Cabinet. He was probably not ill pleased that his formidable Whig colleague should have discredited himself by want of judgment and conduct. A Cabinet was sum

moned, and even the Duke of Portland had nothing to say in vindication of his friend and colleague. The Earl Fitzwilliam was recalled, and his rival, the Irish Chancellor, was immediately afterwards advanced in the peerage with the title of the Earl of Clare.

Letters of

Fitzwilliam, not content with vindicating his conduct in his place in Parliament, appealed Fitzwilliam. to the public, in two long and intemperate letters addressed to his friend the Earl of Carlisle. Both in his speeches and in his writings, he persisted in attributing his disgrace, not to the course which he took on the Catholic question, but to his dismissal of Mr. Beresford. The truth is that the combination of these two events was the ruin of his administration. All-powerful as the Beresfords were in their own country, they had hardly sufficient credit in Downing Street to displace a Lord Lieutenant. And in the division of public opinion in Ireland on the Catholic question, the tendency of the Viceroy towards the liberal side would not in itself have been considered a sufficient reason for removing him, had not the resentment of the old Castle party hit upon the happy idea of alarming the prejudices of the King. But the influence of the Beresfords, co-operating

1795.

EXCITEMENT IN IRELAND.

101

with the authority of the Lord Chancellor, the bigotry of the King, and the indiscretion of his Lieutenant, would have outweighed the support of the minister himself, had he put forth all his power in support of the Irish Viceroy. Far, however, from attempting to uphold the great officer, for whose appointment he had become responsible only a few weeks before, Mr. Pitt was only too ready to sacrifice him.

Lord Camden, whom Pitt had originally designated for the office, was appointed Lord Lieu- Lord Camden tenant. Under ordinary circumstances, made Viceroy. this nobleman would have been welcomed as a successor to the Westmorelands and the Buckinghams. But the people of Ireland were in no humour to be propitiated. Their hopes had been raised high. They had been taught to think that justice was at length to be done to their country; that the days of public robbery and monopoly were numbered; that all men were to be equal before the law; and that a free Parliament would soon sit in College Green. These fond illusions had been in a moment rudely dissipated. Lord Fitzwilliam arrived in Dublin at the beginning of the year. Before the end of February, it became known that the most popular Governor who had ever occupied the Castle, was to be hastily removed because he was about to do justice to Ireland. The excitement throughout the country was intense. Both Houses of Parliament passed unanimous votes of confidence in the Lord Lieutenant. Similar resolutions were agreed to by most of the corporate bodies, many of the counties, and numerous public assemblies. The day on which Fitzwilliam quitted Ireland was a day of gloom, and a day of evil omen which has hardly yet been fulfilled. On that day, the Irish people abandoned all further hope that the policy of 1782 was to be resumed and carried into effect. The Presbyterians of the North,