Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the judgment which ministers have pronounced on his conduct. As no blame, therefore, attaches to the Commander-in-chief, do his Majesty's ministers now defend themselves, or the Lord Lieutenant ? Suppose it should be said, that no blame could attach either to the Lord Lieutenant or the Commander-inchief; be it so for argument. But he (Mr. Fox) must say, that a coolness did take place between them, which made it impossible for both to continue together in Ireland ; and it required, that either the one or the other should retire from his situation. It was necessary to observe, that for many days not only previous to, but after the 23rd of July, they were under the best understanding with each other. But as soon as the Lord Lieutenant found, that the conduct of the Irish government, on the occasion of the insurrection, was loudly complained of, and censured all over England, he was unfortunately advised to throw the blame of the transaction off himself, and lay it on the Commander-in-chief. It was then coolness began, and then the resignation of his honourable relative took place. Though this retirement from his situation was called a resignation, he would say, it was not a voluntary resignation. The language his relative used was this, “I desire you would recall me from my command, if the Lord Lieutenant say I ought to be recalled.”' He was actually recalled ; and he did not come away voluntarily. But what was the effect of such recall ? Nothing less, than giving the public to understand, that the Commander-in-chief had neglected his duty. Mr. Fox then complained of several most illiberal and unfounded reflections cast upon his brother in the Dublin Journal, (Mr. Giffard's paper) which was as much under the control of the Castle, as the Moniteur was under the direction of the French government. “When I see,” continued Mr. Fox, “such things as these published in a government paper, which dares not insert them without authority, what inference can I make than except, that they were designedly published, in order to remove a great degree of odium from one party by throwing it on another ?"

The Algerine bills to which the preceding discussions have reference, were said to have been rendered necessary by the late troubles in Ireland. These troubles, however, had been suppressed in less than an hour, with the loss of five or six men on the part of the king's troops, and about five-and

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that instructions had been given early on the day before the disturbance took place, and to all the necessary officers. If the Lord Lieutenant had not gone to his country house, the city of Dublin might have been put into a state of alarm.

On the 7th of March, 1804, Sir John Wrottesby moved for the appointment of inquiry into the conduct of his Majesty's government, on the 23rd of July last. Sir John, among various proofs of the remissness of government, brought forward the circumstance of the Viceroy having been, at three o'clock in the afternoon of the 23rd of July, guarded by one officer and twelve men ; at seven o'clock, by. thirty men ; and at eleven at night, by having fifteen hundred horse and foot under arms. Lord Castlereagh said, Emmet was only backed by about eighty rebels. The government knew an insurrection would break out on the 23rd July, but not before it was dark, (this was utterly at variance with what his lordship stated on a previous debate). With respect to the men being without ammunition, it was his duty to state, that General Fox, the Commander-in-chief, had ordered sixty rounds to be issued to each man some days before ; and if they had not that store of cartridges with them, it certainly was not the fault of General Fox.

Mr. Secretary York stated, he imputed no blame to General Fox. The principle on which his brother was directed to act was, that of trusting as little as possible to the rumours and accusations circulated against each other by the parties which distracted Ireland. In justice, however, to his brother, he stated, that long before the 23rd of July, 1803, he had expressed his opinion to the government of the expediency of repealing the Habeas Corpus Act.

Mr. Fox said, an honourable relation of his (Admiral Berkely) gave notice of a motion concerning the recall from Ireland of General Fox, which, however, he afterwards declined bringing forward, having stated, that it was not the wish of that officer to have any inquiry entered into concerning him, if a declaration were made on the part of his Majesty's government, that his conduct was approved of.

Such a declaration has been made, and made in a manner, which to him is satisfactory. If infamy or blame, therefore, rest in any quarter, it does not rest with him : he stands clear of it, by

the judgment which ministers have pronounced on his conduct. As no blame, therefore, attaches to the Commander-in-chief, do his Majesty's ministers now defend themselves, or the Lord Lieutenant ? Suppose it should be said, that no blame could, attach either to the Lord Lieutenant or the Commander-inchief ; be it so for argument. But he (Mr. Fox) must say, that a coolness did take place between them, which made it impossible for both to continue together in Ireland ; and it required, that either the one or the other should retire from his situation. It was necessary to observe, that for many days not only previous to, but after the 23rd of July, they were under the best understanding with each other. But as soon as the Lord Lieutenant found, that the conduct of the Irish government, on the occasion of the insurrection, was loudly complained of, and censured all over England, he was unfortunately advised to throw the blame of the transaction off himself, and lay it on the Commander-in-chief. It was then coolness began, and then the resignation of his honourable relative took place. Though this retirement from his situation was called a resignation, he would say, it was not a voluntary resignation. The language his relative used was this, “I desire you would recall me from my command, if the Lord Lieutenant say I ought to be recalled.” He was actually recalled ; and he did not come away voluntarily. But what was the effect of such recall ? Nothing less, than giving the public to understand, that the Commander-in-chief had neglected his duty. Mr. Fox then complained of several most illiberal and unfounded reflections cast upon his brother in the Dublin Journal, (Mr. Giffard's paper) which was as much under the control of the Castle, as the Moniteur was under the direction of the French government. “When I see,” continued Mr. Fox, “such things as these published in a government paper, which dares not insert them without authority, what inference can I make than except, that they were designedly published, in order to remove a great degree of odium from one party by throwing it on another ?"

The Algerine bills to which the preceding discussions have reference, were said to have been rendered necessary by the late troubles in Ireland. These troubles, however, had been suppressed in less than an hour, with the loss of five or six men on the part of the king's troops, and about five-and

row.

twenty on that of the insurgents. The public tranquility, in fact, could hardly have been said to have been disturbed out of the immediate precincts of the emeute, from two points, not calculated by their names even to add to the prestige of the attempt, from the corner of Dirty-lane to that of Cutpurse

But the fact is, the introduction into Ireland of similar measures, was seldom in consequence of insurrections, but in consequence of plots and conspiracies, got up by the adherents of government to create or to foment them. We have the clearest proofs of the fact, in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, in 1801, which went through all its stages in one night, with little opposition, except on the part of Lords Moira and Holland. Lord Grenville, in voting for it, said, he never gave a vote with more satisfaction to his conscience. These great British statesmen had two consciences, like Launcelot Gobbo, one made of Indian rubber, exceedingly elastic, for stretching to any shape or size on a squeezeable subject in relation to Ireland ; the other, of good tough materials, like the timbers of British ships, tight and sound, that was brought into action when any attempt was made hostile to liberty, that was dangerous to Englishmen.

The measures which are treated of in the discussions noticed in the preceding pages, the bitter fruits of insurrection, or plausible pretext which insurrection afforded, were followed by acts in Ireland consonant to them in the letter and the spirit of their enactments. The prisons were filled with suspected criminals. In the Provost of Major Sandys alone, in the month of August, 1803, there were upwards of five hundred people confined, enduring sufferings less deadly, but not much less dreadful, than those endured in the Black Hole of Calcutta. The 12th of October, the Government issued a proclamation, setting forth that Wm. Dowdall, of the city of Dublin, gent. ; John Allen, of do., woollen draper ; Wm. H. Hamilton, of Enniskillen, gent. ; Michael Quigley, of Rathcoffy, bricklayer ; Owen Lyons, of Maynooth, shoe-maker ; Thomas Trenaghan, of Crew-hill, Kildare, farmer ; Michael Stafford, of James's-street, baker ; Thomas Frayne, of Boven, Kildare, farmer ; Thomas Wylde, of Cork-street, cotton manufacturer ; John Mahon, of Cork-street, man servant, who, being charged with high treason, had absconded. A reward was offered of £300 for the arrest of each of the following

persons, Messrs. Dowdall, Allen, Hamilton, Quigley, Lyons, and Stafford, and £200, for the discovery of Thomas Frayne, Thomas Wylde, and John Mahon.

A reward of £1,000 was likewise offered for the discovery of the murderers of Lord Kilwarden, or his nephew, Mr. Wolfe ; and £50 for each of the first hundred rebels who had appeared in arms in Dublin on the 23d of July, who should be discovered and prosecuted to conviction.

This was, if not an extensive premium on perjury, certainly a very large temptation to it. It produced the effect, I will not say intended, but most assuredly that might be expected from it. A number of miscreants of the class of Mr. James O'Brien, again skulked into public notice, crept into places of public resort, sneaked into court, and swore away the lives of men, who, if faith is to be put in the solemn assurances of individuals of the families of their victims at this distant date, from the period in question, were guiltless of the charges brought against them. Two of the worst of those miscreants, were persons of the name of Mahaffey and Ryan. A vast number, moreover, of gentlemen of respectability were taken up ; a few were liberated, but the majority were kept in close confinement for nearly three years.

On the 14th of April, 1801, Mr. Pelham moved in the House of Commons, the order of the day for considering “the report of the secret committee for inquiring into the state of Ireland, and the conduct of persons in England tending to treason and sedition,” and then moved for leave to bring in a bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus. Amongst the few who opposed the bill on the second reading, was Sir Francis Burdett. “He saw no difference between the late and the present administration ; he had watched their blood-tracked steps in Ireland ; he had witnessed their wicked edicts, all tending to destroy the remnant of the constitution. He wished the house to pause and reflect on what coercion had done in Ireland.” Mr. Sheridan strongly opposed the bill, Mr. Law, and Mr. Spencer Percival (the Attorney and Solicitor-General) strenuously defended the bill. The former said, “ as an honest man, he heartily voted for it."

Mr. Horne Tooke said, “ that when he heard the sentiments of the men from whom the future judges of the land were to be taken, giving their votes, as honest men, for such measures, he

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »