Viceroyalty of Earl FitzWilliam.

Chapter XVII.

1792-1795.

Viceroyalty of Earl FitzWilliam - Administration of Earl FitzWilliam - Promise not to oppose the Catholic Relief Bill - In 1795, the Measure brought in by Gentleman John Beresford - Pitt complains of the Viceroy - Rumours that Lord FitzWilliam was to be recalled - Conduct of the British Government - Attempt to withhold Supplies

• Lord FitzWilliam writes to Mr. Pitt - The popular Viceroy leaves Ireland - Grief for his Recall.

While Mr. Pitt, no doubt, appeared desirous to remove the disabilities under which Catholics laboured - for though they were allowed to vote for the election of members, they were not allowed to sit in Parliament, and all offices of state, emoluments, and dignities were denied - there was no hope of redress from the Irish Parliament. In 1797, Grattan proposed a measure of relief in very moderate terms; but the spirit of animosity against the Catholics was so great, his measure was defeated by an overwhelming majority; the numbers being 19 for, 143 against.

On the 4th January 1790, the Marquis of Buckingham was succeeded in the viceroyalty by the Earl of Westmoreland, and this nobleman’s administration does not seem to have generally impressed the state of Irish politics. The Parliament seemed to vote the public money in a very scandalous way, and places and pensions were multiplied by Acts of Parliament

The efforts to emancipate the Catholics were frustrated. A Convention Act, to prevent public meetings, was passed; and from some deep scheme of policy it would seem as if Mr. Pitt resolved, by selecting as viceroy a nobleman friendly to the Catholics, so to raise their hopes, and then, by suddenly withdrawing their friend, to incite the Irish people to try and gain by a rebellion he knew he had power to defeat, what they failed to obtain by constitutional means, and in the depressed state of Ireland accomplish his darling project off the Union.

The appointment of an assured friend gave great hopes to the Irish Catholics. On 4th January 1792, Lord FitzWilliam arrived in Ireland. He understood from Mr. Pitt he was to support the claims of the Catholics; and finding the law officers - Wolfe and Toler (afterwards Lord Norbury) - hostile to any recognition of the Catholic claim, gave their offices to friends of the people - Ponsonby and Curran. He seems to have had repeated interviews with Mr. Pitt, for the following extract from the * Freeman’s Journal *gives a later date for his Irish visit:-

In January 1795, Lord FitzWilliam arrived in Ireland, bearing a message of peace. He was welcomed, trusted by all creeds and classes. The old spirit of Protestant Ascendancy seemed to have departed, and a united Irish nation received with a *cead mille failthe *an English governor who had come to do justice to all. Great progress had been made in the Catholics question since 1793, when the Catholics were admitted to the elective franchise. All honour to the Protestant Episcopalians of Ireland. Though they had as a body at first stoutly resisted the extension of the franchise to the Catholics, yet when that measure was carried, practically, over their heads by the great organisation formed by Wolfe Tone and John Keogh, they bethought themselves of the whole case, and, encouraged by the presence of FitzWilliam and inspired by a sense of justice, they resolved to help in the work of Catholic emancipation.

In July 1794, it was rumoured in Ireland that a Government favourable to the Catholic claims was about to be formed by the Luke of Portland and Mr. Pitt. The friends of the Catholics urged Grattan to proceed at, once to England and see the new ministers. Grattan went. Arrived in London, he promptly called upon the Duke of Portland. ‘I am glad to see you,’ said the duke. ‘I have taken office, and I have done so because I know that there is to be an entire change of system’ (Grattan’s *Memoirs, * vol. iv. p. 174). Shortly after this interview Grattan dined at the duke’s with Pitt, the Grenvilles, George Ponsonby, Sir John Parnell, and others. Parnell and Pitt sat near each other at dinner. Pitt created an unfavourable impression both on Parnell and Grattan They felt he was not to be trusted. ‘What does Ireland want?’ he said to Grattan - ‘what would she have more?’ And this in 1794, when Irish Catholics had practically as little to do with the government of their country as the inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

However, friendly relations were maintained between the Irish patriot and the English ministers. They saw each other frequently, and Grattan told Pitt frankly that the question of the hour was Catholic Emancipation. ‘Ireland,’ said Pitt, ‘has already got much.’ How like what Liberal Unionists say to-day! Finally, the terms arrived at between Grattan and Pitt were that the Government would not bring forward the Catholic question, but would not oppose it if some one else brought it forward. The exact words used by Pitt were ‘not to bring forward the Catholic question.’

Ponsonby, who sat on the ministerial bench, rose to his feet. He begged the subject might not be pressed further for the present, and that ministers should not be urged to answer Parsons’ question. Grattan joined in the appeal, and the subject was allowed to drop. But on the 2nd of March Parsons returned to the topic again. When the report on supply was brought up, he moved that the words in the Money Bill, ‘the 25th March 1796,’ should be expunged, and the words, ‘the 25th March 1 795,’ inserted instead. He denounced the conduct of the British Cabinet as disgraceful. ‘There has been a meeting,’ he said, held at the Royal Exchange. The governor of the Bank ‘of Ireland was in the chair. Resolutions were passed, without a dissentient voice, in favour of the Catholics. The hopes of the people have been raised, and now in one instant they are to be blasted. The Protestants of Ireland have declared in favour of emancipation. But the British Cabinet cares neither for the Protestants nor the Catholics of Ireland. Has it come to this, that the British minister is to control all the interests, all the talents, all the inclinations of the people of this country?’ Duquery followed in an equally violent speech. ‘I have long watched,’ he said, ‘the British Cabinet, and I have ever discovered in it a strong propensity to treat Ireland with insult and contempt. I shall support my hon. friend (Parsons), for there is nothing like a Short Money Bill to bring the English minister to reason. The chief secretary rose and begged Parsons to give way, Ponsonby and Grattan again joined in the appeal. It would not do, they said, in face of the troubles on the Continent, to vote a Short Money Bill. But Parsons and Duquery would not yield an inch. They wanted to know before they voted supplies for a twelvemonth, whether the British minister meant to keep his word or not.

The House then divided, with the result -

Against Parsons - 146

For - 24

“It was now officially announced that FitzWilliam was to be recalled. He had written to Pitt point-blank to say that he would not stand for one hour between the Catholics and emancipation, and Pitt informed hint by next mail that he would be relieved from the government of, the country.

On the 25th of March Lord FitzWilliam left Ireland. ‘It was,’ says Plowden, ‘a day of general gloom; the shops were shut; no business of any kind was transacted; and the whole city put on mourning. ‘His coach was drawn to the water-side by some of the most respectable citizens, and a cordial sorrow was manifested, not only throughout Dublin, but the entire kingdom.”

It appears that the good works of Lord FitzWilliam were frustrated by the bigotry of the anti-Catholic party both in England and Ireland. Lord Clare was not to be denied, and he incessantly stirred up the embers of religious enmity against his fellow-countrymen.

On the 16th November 1792, Pitt wrote to Lord Westmoreland, then lord-lieutenant, his wish to promote the Union. He knew it was unpopular in Ireland. Lord Clare, the lord chancellor of Ireland, often pressed it on him. The attempt to bring the French Republicans to aid the party in Ulster, who so strongly identified themselves with the ferocious treaties of the French Republic, no doubt alarmed that sagacious statesman; and we learn from Mr. Fitzpatrick’s recent contribution to Irish history, *Secret Service under *Pitt, how widespread was the conspiracy of the united Irish. These abominable plots were projected and matured chiefly in Ulster by natives of Belfast, and headed by Protestant traitors, like Theobald Wolfe Tone, Napper Tandy, Lord Edward FitzGerald, and others, whose disloyal efforts to sever the connexion between Ireland and Great Britain, and establish an Irish Republic, are fully related by the Rev. R. R. Madden in his *Lives of the United Irishmen. *Mr. Pitt, well aware that by the enactments of 1782 Ireland was as independent of Great Britain as Great Britain was of Ireland, resolved to try and induce the Irish people, without whom he could not hope to effect a binding union, to agree to his project of consolidating the Empire. He therefore resolved to send a viceroy who was a known friend to the Catholic claims, and in the selection of Earl FitzWilliam did much to effect his object He had another project to aid him.

We have already seen that there was a project to provide independent and sufficient maintenance for the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, in the Act of Union, when granting relief to the Catholics. We also find the four Archbishops of Armagh, Dublin, Tuam, and Cashel, and several other prelates, were willing to accept this; and though I believe in the time of O’Connell some effort was made to ascertain their wishes, and he found that they would not accept any provision - of course so much must depend on the mode of settling this matter - he did not push the subject. It was very different in the last century, when Catholics were enslaved. But in this just and salutary measure Mr. Pitt was obstructed by the Protestant Ascendancy party, who so long had held their fellow-countrymen in bondage because they were Catholics. Though Lord FitzWilliam before leaving London was desired ‘not to oppose the Catholic claim, he found the Beresford faction too strong to be resisted; and, as we have seen, Mr. Pitt was obliged to recall him, on the pretext that the viceroy had misunderstood his instructions, to the grief of the nation and especially the Catholic portion. Earl FitzWilliam was recalled, and replaced by a nobleman of quite the opposite feelings, who at once became the idol of the Ascendancy party, and in this way goaded the misguided people into rebellion.

The difference of opinion of the two Parliaments on the question of the regent’s power was thus avoided, when another difference arose. By the removal of commercial restraints the Irish claimed the right of exporting their goods into foreign countries as freely as the English, and Irish wool was sent to Portugal. But the Portuguese declined to receive it, and so the Irish Parliament addressed the king to coerce the Portuguese Government to make no distinction between Irish and English wool.

Those important differences suggested to the sagacious mind of Pitt, then prime minister, the necessity of a Union. The necessity of making Ireland a republic by the aid of French invasion was conceived by the Ulster Republicans men of great talents and influence, but imbued with hostility to the throne and constitution of Great Britain. [Hist. *Rev., *by Ball, *p. *162 *Leckie’s History, vol iv. p. 520; Speeches of Sir Robert Peel, *vol. ii. p.425.] We shall see, later on, the efforts Mr. Pitt’s well-chosen viceroy, Lord Cornwallis, made to induce the people of Ireland to consent to the Union, without which the king said it would be nothing.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.