’ 
240] ANNUAL REGISTER, (1797. 
mitted to the enjoyment of their 
property ; a participation ‘in every 
eivil and social blessing, and even 
sharing in'the right of voting for 
members of parliament. Nor were 
the people of Ireland insensible or 
ungrateful for the benefits they had 
received : their good dispositions, 
and contentment with their situa- 
tion, he inferred from sundry cir- 
cumstances, particularly, their rea- 
diness to resist and repel the threat- 
~ened invasion. With regard to the 
mischievous tendency of the motion, 
lord Grenville remarked a distinc- 
tion between the subject of this, 
andthe cases of common interest, 
stated by lord’ Moira, which were 
fair objects of negociation. The 
motion was intended to’ be applied | 
to the internal state of Ireland, and 
even, if he understood it rightly, 
to the frame of its independent 
legislature. Though ‘the British 
legislature had restrained parliament 
from entertaining any bill which 
pretended, in any degree, to bind 
the inhabitants of Ireland; their 
lordships were now called upon to 
interfere in a point most exclusively 
relating to the internal state of that 
country. Such an interference was 
obyiously improper : it was, besides, 
impossible for them to proceed with 
sufficient information, which lay 
much more within the reach of their 
own legislature. Farther still, the 
interference of the British legisla- 
ture, instead of remedying the dis- 
contents which were alleged to 
prevail, would inflame them. It 
would induce the people of Ireland 
to imagine that their own legisla- 
ture was indifferent to their wel- 
fare, and thus stir up the divisions 
which it was its object to appéase. 
As the British legislature had given 
to Ireland the blessings of a free 
constitution, the best way to fix 
their attachment to it, was, to en- 
gage their confidence in its favour. 
The earl Fitzwilliam admitted the 
improved state of Ireland. But 
whatever circumstances might have 
contributed to that prosperity, still 
there might remain room for some- 
‘thing farther to be done. The 
noble sécretary had said, that the 
people of Ireland were not distracted 
and disconteuted, but tranquil and 
happy. Was it a proof of this, that 
acts of indemnity had been passed, 
in the Irish parliament, for proceed= 
ings beyond the law, which must. 
have been called for by a conduct 
not very consistent ‘with tranquil- 
lity ? If no circumstances of dis- 
order appeared, why were whole 
parishes, baronies, and eyen coun- 
ties, declared to be out of the 
king’s peace? It was likewise 
stated in the proceedings of the 
government in Ireland, that they 
were, in certain districts, disarming 
the people, from which it was 
evident they had been in arms. 
The earl of Liverpool, after re- 
peating and approving the reason- 
ing of lord Grenville, put the case 
of a motion being made, in the 
Irish parliament, for the purpose 
of inducing it to inteifere in the 
discussion of the great question of 
parliamentary reform, or Catholic 
toleration in this country. How, 
he asked, would such a motion be 
taken by the British parliament? 
The motion, before their lordships, 
seemed to him to be as mischie-~ 
yous in its tendency, as unconsti- 
tutional in its principle, wherefore 
he would give it his most decided 
negative, 
The earl of Moira granted, that 
the legislature of Ireland was inde- 
pendent, but still maintained, that 
in 
