whom fuffered the fentence of death; and it was not till after a long interval that a general pardon was granted, burdened alfo with many exceptions.

On the 21st of March the earl of Moira made an important motion in the houfe of lords for an addrefs to his majesty, "That he would be graciously pleased to interpose his paternal interference to remedy the difcontents which prevailed in Ireland, and created the most serious alarm for that country and the dearefts interefts of Britain." His lordfhip acknowledged that the utmost care ought to be taken not to exceed the line of demarcation between the two legiflatures of Great Britain and Ireland, and the utmost delicacy employed in the agitation of questions in which the privileges and independence of each other were involved. But he conceived the present motion to relate to a matter of common concern and mutual intereft, upon which both countries had an equal right to and forward. His lordship deprecated unprofitable disputation;---the time was now come when the exertions of every honest man were neceffary to fave the state from the calamities in which it was plunged. To prove the influence of the British cabinet over the councils of Ireland, if that could be a fubject of doubt, he adverted to the recall of earl Fitzwilliam, at a period when all Ireland applauded the wisdom of his meafures---when that country afforded the fairest prospect of tranquillity, and offered the fureft pledge of assistance and fupport to Britain. To the impolicy of that measure, the present distracted state of Ireland, his lordship said, was undoubtedly to be imputed; and he urged the neceffity of appeafing the existing discontents of the country, and of adopting fuch measures as would impress the people with confidence in the government,

Lord Grenville, in reply, pretended "that the present motion could not be adopted without tearing asunder every bond of union, and breaking the folemn contract fubfifting between the two countries. He even ventured to deny the

existence

exiftence of discontent and difaffection to any confiderable extent; but allowing that they actually prevailed, the benevolence of his majefty's difpofition must be anxious to remove them. Instead of remedying discontents, the motion now offered to the house would inflame them, and induce the Irish to imagine their own legiflature was careless of their welfare."

Lord Fitzwilliam faid " he never would concur with the noble secretary that this country ought not to give any opinion upon the public fituation of Ireland. Such interference, for the purpose of averting evils from both, was proper, and the right was clear.---The people of Ireland were reported, alas! by the noble fecretary, to be tranquil and happy.

Why then were whole parishes, baronies, and even counties, declared to be out of the king's peace? Was this tranquillity? Was this happiness? Was this a ftate of things by which this country was in no danger of being affected? This was a period," his lordship faid, "of awful portent. Storms and tempefts impended over them, and it was their duty to exert every effort of human wisdom to avert the danger which threatened the empire. And was it then beyond the proper fphere of their lordship's confideration to addrefs his majefty to employ his paternal care in co-operation with, and giving effect to, thefe efforts and exertions."

The earl of Liverpool, late lord Hawkesbury, and still better known under the name of Charles Jenkinfon-who might almost be regarded as the evil genius of Britain perfonified---gave it as his opinion, "that the motion was improper, whether intended to induce them in their legislative capacity to interfere in the affairs of Ireland, or to advise his majesty to exercise his executive authority in a particular way over that branch of the empire. Granting even, for the fake of argument, that all the evils complained of really existed, ftill he would contend they ought to be remedied by the Irifh parliament, not by the British legisla

ture,

.ture, whofe interference was calculated to aggravate, not remove, discontents. The motion was as mischievous in its tendency as it was unconstitutional in its principle."

The earl of Guildford obferved, "that the argument of the fecretary went not to protect the independence of the Irish parliament fo much as to fecure minifters from refponfibility. Neither the British cabinet, nor an Irish lordlieutenant, were responsible to the Irish parliament: and if they were exempted alfo from the control of the British parliament, to whom were they refponfible?"

The marquis of Lanfdown warned the ministers" that they were profecuting a system in Ireland which would, in its confequences, shake the British empire to its centre. If the grievances of Ireland had been redressed last year, the motion before the house would have been unneceffary: if not redressed this, the breach muft grow ftill wider. Give the people of Ireland," faid this noble lord, "their rights, and you will require neither fleets nor armies to protect them."-After a long and interefting debate, the motion was negatived by a majority of 72 to 20 voices.

Two days fubfequent to this debate, Mr. Fox brought forward, in the house of commons, an addrefs to the king, fimilar to that of lord Moira, which he enforced in a speech admired even by his enemies, and justly applauded by his friends, as a mafter-piece of eloquence and political wisdom. Mr. Fox declared, "that the bulk of the Irish nation fighed for the substantial bleffing of a free-constitution; and when he faw, as at the eve of the American contest, a government defirous to decide by violence against the will of a majority, he clearly faw, as at that period, the danger of a civil war. He was the first perfon who pronounced the words American War' in that houfe; and the expreflion was then ridiculed as abfurd and extravagant. Some would, no doubt, treat the idea of an Irish War with the fame contempt; and he fincerely wished that he might not be found so true a prophet as in the former inflance. Ireland was now in that

ftate

state where the executive power was every thing, and the rights of the people nothing; and in which it was necessary to keep the inhabitants in subjection by force. But was it poffible to convince them by the bayonet that their principles were false, their pretenfions unjust? and was the exercise of martial law to prove to them their enjoyment of a free constitution? What must be the effect of fuch meafures? Would it not induce the most loyal to question the excellence of that monarchical form of government under which they fuffered fuch calamities? When we wanted the affiftance of the Catholics, was it politic to refuse their demands? or would their fubmiffion to laws they detested laft longer than our force and their impotency? For myfelf," faid this great statesman, I know of no way of governing mankind but by conciliating them. If Ireland is thus governed, will she be lefs ufeful to Britain than at present, when, fo far from adding to the ftrength of the empire, the occafions a great and powerful diversion from it? The confequences of a war with her were dreadful to contemplate-Public horrors would be fo much increased by the laceration of private feelings, as to spread universal mifery through both countries. Rigor had been already attempted;-let conciliation be tried before the laft appeal is hazarded. Let the whole people of Ireland enjoy the fame principles, the fame fyftem, the fame operation of government, and all claffes an equal chance of emolument. The more Ireland feels the advantages of her connection with England, the more will fhe be bound to English interefts." ---Mr. Fox touched next upon the removal of lord Fitzwilliam. He asked those who beft knew the country, "whether the day of his departure was not a day of forrow? The Catholic petition was rejected; and the present diftracted ftate of Ireland had been produced by the hopes of the people being disappointed, and by the cup of enjoyment and liberty having been fuddenly dashed from their lips." He concluded his fpeech by moving an address to his ma

jefty,

jesty," that he would be pleased to take into confideration the disturbed state of Ireland, and to adopt fuch lenient measures as might appear best calculated to restore tranquillity and conciliate affection."

The motion was feconded by fir Francis Burdett, a young man of great perfonal and political rectitude of character, accompanied with high and lofty fentiments of liberty, which time and experience only were wanting to mellow and mature. This gentleman, without hesitation, avowed his opinion, " that there was but one way of faving Ireland---of faving England; and that was by divesting the present minifter of the power he had so long and fo fa tally abused, and calling him to a strict account at the tribunal of his country."

Mr. Pitt oppofed the motion as improperly calculated to advise his majesty to give effect to measures which, constitutionally, could originate only in the parliament of Ireland, the natural fource of legislative arrangements in that country. He objected also to the measures meant to be recommended by the motion, and affirmed that farther conceffions would be highly imprudent on our part. By introducing Catholics into the legislative body, the acts of settlement, and the very existence of the established church in that kingdom, would be endangered; nor was it upon such a foundation that he would build the future fabric of the peace of Ireland. To agree to any effential alteration of the prefent conftitution of parliament, while fuch principles were abroad in the world, and were even prevalent in this country, would be attended with the moft pernicious confequences."The speech of Mr. Pitt gave occafion to a maf terly reply from Mr. Fox; at the clofe of which he observed, "that he had been a long time deprecating coercive measures. He had deprecated the adoption of them against America in 1774: he deprecated them against France in 1792; and he now deprecated the fame fyftem in Ireland. Though his advice had not been followed, it was a confo