HISTORY OF EUROPE. 22 
dom. But contrarily to the best 
founded hopes, the people of Ire- 
land had been deceived in the most 
insulting manner: their reasonable 
requests had heen denied, and the 
man of their confidence recalled, for 
having shewn an inclination to 
gratify them. A conduct so haughty 
and domineering ought to undergo 
a strictexamination, and parliament 
was bound in justice to the public, 
to compel ministers to account for 
so inconsistent and mysterious a con- 
duct. The duke, therefore, madea 
motion to this effect. 
The earlsof Mansfield, Coventry, 
‘and Carnarvon, and lord Sydney, 
opposed the duke’s motion. Lord 
Fitzwilliam’s character not having 
suffered by bis removal, they main- 
tained that no enquiry was needed 
to clear itup. The prerogative of 
the crown empowered it to dis- 
miss ministers at discretion; it were 
unconstitutional to institute en- 
quiries into the reasons for such dis- 
missions; and parliamentary dis- 
cussions were the more improper, as 
they might disclose matters that 
ought never to have been divulged. 
The dismission ef lord Fitzwilliam 
proved no more than a difference of 
opinion on his part, touching the 
affairs of Ireland, that made it im- 
proper he should act with ministers 
who were of another: neither was 
there sufficient evidence of the dis- 
contents in Ireland, to require any 
articular investigation. 
It was observed by the earl of 
Guildford, in reply, that, as without 
encroaching on the royal preroga« 
tive, to declare war, or to conclude 
peace, the propriety of either the 
one or the other might be discussed 
in parliament, so might the pro- 
priety of any other act of the crown. 
On this principle the removal of 
lord Fitzwilliam merited an enquiry, 
that the people of Ireland might 
know their friends in this country 
from their enemies. He was spi- 
ritedly supported by the duke of 
Leeds and lord Moira, who declared 
themselves satisfied that an enquiry, 
instead of danger, would ultimately 
be productive of safety, by eluci- 
dating a transaction, the motives for 
which were so obscure, ‘that the 
people of Ireland- were at a loss to 
comprehend them, and might har- 
bour resentments against those who 
had no participation in the measure. 
Lord Fitzwilliam was charged with 
imprudently forwarding a design to 
emancipate the Irish Catholics: but 
was it not sanctioned by every pru- 
dent motive? Did not three-fourths 
of that nation petition for it? Did 
the other fourth oppose it?, He had 
laboured with particular zeal to put 
a stop to the glaring abuses prevail- 
ing in the administration of affairs 
in Ireland: these were arrived to 
such a height, that if not corrected, 
their consequences would shortly 
prove fatal to the government of 
that country, however it might 
deem itself secure. Was it not te- 
merity in the extreme, amidst so 
many causes of dissatisfaction, to 
add so material aone, as the depriv- 
ing them at once of their hopes of 
obtaining what they were willing to 
consider as aredress of all griey- 
ances, 
The eatl of Westmoreland de-- 
cidedly condemned the introduction 
into the Irish parliament of the bu- 
siness relating to the Catholics ; 
which he asserted was contrary to 
the instructions carried from Eng- 
land: their emancipation, he main- 
tained, was repugnant to sound 
policy, as well as to the king’s oath, 
and the laws of the land. 
fQ.2 Ta 
pa) 
