Change of Viceroy in 1778 - the Proposed Regency.

Chapter XVIII.

Change of Viceroy in 1778 - The Proposed Regency.

Duke of Rutland Viceroy - Viceroy’s Salary increased - Anecdote of a proper Rebuke - Mr. Pitt’s Letter to the Duke - Death of the Duke - His Successor the Marquis of Buckingham - Insanity of King George III. - Mr. Pitt determines to restrict the Power of the Prince of Wales as Regent - The Irish Parliament grant unlimited Power - Action of the Viceroy - Gratitude of the Prince - The Round Robin - Recall of Marquis of Buckingham - Pitt’s Union Policy.

During the viceroyalty of the young Duke of Rutland, the salary of the viceroy was increased from £16,000 to £20,000 a year, and great festivities prevailed both at the Castle and Viceregal Lodge. The duke was of a most convivial disposition3 and he was devoted to the drinking habits then so prevalent. An anecdote of water-drinking by one of the courtiers who attended a Castle banquet, met with so proper a rebuke from the viceroy, it deserves to be recorded. When the finger-glasses were placed on the dinner-table, that used by the duchess, a very beautiful young lady, was seized, after she had dipped her fingers, by one of the party, Sir Hercules Langrishe, who, by way of testifying his admiration for the duchess, proceeded to drink the contents of the vessel.

This naturally attracted attention, and the viceroy was resolved to administer a rebuke to the perpetrator of this violation of decorum. “By jove, sir,” he said, “you are in luck. The duchess washes her feet to-night, and I’ll tell her waiting-maid to keep the water for you.”

Viceroy Duke of Rutland told the Right Rev. Dr. Wilson, Bishop of Llandaff, that the man who would propose a union between Ireland and Great Britain would be tarred and feathered. Yet that the measure of union was in contemplation appears from letters now discovered. In 1784, the Duke of Rutland wrote to Pitt that, without a union, Ireland would not be connected with Great Britain 20 years longer. This intimation from the viceroy, whose convivial habits brought him into association with men well acquainted with the popular feeling, and as we know, *in vino veritas, *showed Pitt that the desire to have free trade was very deep-seated, and he was too sagacious a statesman not to try and gain favour with the Irish merchants. Accordingly, on the 6th January 1785, Mr. Pitt wrote a most important letter to the Duke of Rutland. He states the Cabinet agreed to give Ireland, not only full equality with England in all matters of trade and commerce, but more than equality advantages. Notwithstanding this, the commercial propositions of Pitt were not favourably received by the Irish Parliament.

It might have been well if the viceroy had used a little more water and less wine, for he died while in office on the 24th October 1787, in his 34th year of life. During the administration of his successor, the Marquis of Buckingham, a direct collision took place between the Parliament of Great Britain and that of Ireland, which, I think, was one of the principal reasons which induced Mr. Pitt to determine on the extinction of the Irish, by merging it in the Parliament of Great Britain, and thus form a united Parliament.

The occasion was the insanity of his Majesty George III. In 178S, the king was unable to rule, and the Prince of Wales was to be appointed regent, but his Royal Highness had so many friends among the Whig party, led by Charles James Fox, that he resolved his Royal Highness should have conditions imposed upon him: that the care of the royal person, the management of the household, appointment of officers and servants, should be vested in the queen; that his Royal Highness should only exercise his power in a limited way in granting offices or pensions, and not any dignity of peerage, except to his Majesty’s issue. The Prince of Wales was very indignant at this proposal of the prime minister, and had a very spirited refusal despatched to Mr. Pitt. [The important correspondence is published in the *Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. ii. pp. 179-192. The reply of the prince is supposed to have been written by Edmund Burke.]

Notwithstanding the repugnance of the prince, Mr. Pitt had sufficient influence with the British Parliament that his plan was carried. The Bill introduced on February 1st was passed on the 12th of that month, 1789.

When the state of the king’s health was made known to the Irish, Mr. FitzHerbert stated the Irish Government intended to create the Prince of Wales regent by a Bill. This Mr. Ponsonby regarded as unconstitutional, and Mr. Connolly moved, and Mr. Ponsonby seconded, the following motion:- “That it is the opinion of this committee that a humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to request him to take upon himself the government of this realm during the continuation of his Majesty’s present indisposition, and no longer; and under the style and title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name of his Majesty, to exercise and administer, according to the laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal power, jurisdiction, and prerogative to the Crown and Government thereof belonging.”

Thus the two Parliaments were at ‘variance. While the’ British Parliament conferred only a limited regency on the Prince of Wales, the Irish conferred unrestricted power.

The language of the Attorney-General [FitzGibbon, afterwards lord chancellor and Earl of Clare.] is worth quoting at this time in reference to Irish Home Rule. He maintained “that the Crowns of England and Ireland are inseparably and indissolubly united, and the Irish Parliament totally independent of the British Parliament. The first position is your security - the second is your freedom; and when gentlemen talk any other language, they either tend to the separation of the Crowns or the subjugation of your Parliament - they invade either your security or your liberty. Further, the only security of your liberty is your connexion with Great Britain; and gentlemen to risk breaking that connexion must make up their minds to a union. GOD FORBID I SHOULD EVER SEE THAT DAY; but if ever the day on which a separation shall be attempted may come, I shall not hesitate to embrace a union rather than a separation.” [*Lives of the Lord Chancellors of Ireland, *vol. ii. p. 185.]

A division carried the address by a large majority, and a deputation waited on the lord-lieutenant to require him to forward it to the prince. But his Excellency said he could not do so consistently with h}s position, “as it proposed to invest his Royal Highness with power to take upon him the government of the realm before he shall be entitled by law to do so.” This gave great offence to the prince’s friends in Ireland, and some strong censures on his conduct were expressed in and out of the Irish Parliament. That the prince was most grateful for the action of the Irish Parliament, is expressed in a letter from Mr. Pelhan [Lord Chicester.] to Grattan, dated 19th February 1789: “I trust that our friends in Ireland, who have done themselves so much honour by their conduct, will not be dispirited by the tricks and intrigues of the Pitt faction. I have not time to express to you how strongly the prince is affected by the confidence and attachment of the Irish Parliament I saw him at Carlton House, and he ordered me to write to you, but I have only time to say, in his own words, ‘TELL GRATTAN THAT I AM A MOST DETERMINED IRISHMAN.”’

It is a proof of the little faith to be placed in such declarations, that this most determined Irishman of 1789 could scarcely be prevailed on to pass the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829, but no doubt party wars made him forget the indiscretions of his youth. The question at issue between the two Houses of Parliament was settled by the recovery of the king on 9th March 1789. A vote of censure having been passed on the lord-lieutenant gave great offence, as did the course taken by the majority of the Irish House of Commons in opposing the policy of Mr. Pitt. A rumour being spread that all places and pensions held by members of Parliament in Opposition, at the pleasure of the Crown, should be withdrawn, and the holders made *victims of their vote, *a resolution settled by Mr. Grattan declared, “That if any one of the subscribing persons shall, in consequence of his conduct upon the regency question, or upon the measures necessary to be taken in consequence thereof, be deprived of his office or pension, or shall be made, as is threatened, *the victims of his vote, * we agree we will not accept of such office or pension for ourselves or any other person, and that we shall consider such deprivation, dismissal, or the rendering such individual the victim of his vote, as a reprobation of our political conduct an attack upon public principle and the independence of Parliament; and that any administration taking or persevering in any such steps is not entitled to our confidence, and shall not receive our support.”

This pledge was signed by no less than 56 peers and members of the House of Commons, and called the Round Robin.

Notwithstanding these threats, then offers to abandon the intention of dismissing the hostile officials if they would support Mr. Pitt, and finding stubborn resistance, the project was effected, and officials of the highest rank, and pensions to the amount of £20,000 a year, were forfeited by the Irish patriotic party.

Next Chapter Parliamentary Index. Home.