MR. GREY’S MEASURE OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
During this session Mr. Grey brought forward a motion for parliamentary reform. He observed, in reply to the objection, that this was not the proper time for reform, that it would be equally rational in times of prosperity and adversity, in times of peace and war. He remarked:—“Whatever evils did, or might threaten the nation, there was no preventive so certain, no safeguard so powerful, as an uninterrupted house of commons, emanating fairly and freely from the people. To the want of this we owed the American war, and the vast accumulation of national debt; and if this had been done last year, it would probably have saved us from our present distresses. No set of Britons, unless bereft of their senses, could, after recent events, propose the French revolution as a model for our imitation. But were such principles even likely to threaten danger, the surest way of preventing it was to promote the happiness and comfort of the people, to gratify their reasonable wishes, and to grant that reform which was so earnestly desired.” Grey’s arguments were enforced by Fox, Whitbread, and others; and opposed by Pitt, Jenkinson, and Powys. Pitt explained his former motives for being friendly to a parliamentary reform, and his objections against it at the present moment. Many petitions had been presented in favour of reform; and Pitt said, that if the principle of individual suffrage, pointed at in some of these petitions, was to be carried out, the peerage would be extinguished, the king deposed, every hereditary distinction and every privileged order swept away, and there would be established that system of equalizing anarchy announced in the code of French legislation, and attested in the blood of the massacres at Paris. Fox attacked Pitt on the score of inconsistency. He observed, that as Lord Foppington said in the play, “I begin to think that when I was a commoner, I was a very nauseous fellow; so Pitt began to think, that when he was a reformer, he must have been a very foolish fellow.” Fox called the objection to the time for reform a fallacy; a mere pretext for putting off what the house knew was necessary, but felt unwilling to grant. The debate lasted two days; when the motion for referring the petitions to a committee were negatived by two hundred and eighty two, against forty-one.
GEORGE III. 1793-1794
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
The king prorogued parliament on the 21st of June. In his speech his majesty noticed the rapid and signal successes which, in an early period of the campaign, had attended the operations of the combined armies; the respectable force which he had been enabled to employ by sea and land, and the measures which he had concerted with the other powers for the effectual prosecution of the war. From all this his majesty augured a happy issue to the important contest in which we were engaged.
AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.
During this year an important concession was made to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Many events led to this measure. On the failure of Pitt’s attempt, in 1785, to reconcile the commercial interests of the two countries, resolutions were made in Ireland to abstain from the importation of English manufactures, and efforts were made by the populace to enforce these resolutions on all who disapproved of them. The tumults and alarms which followed these proceedings, gave rise, in the session of 1786, for an act, establishing a police in the city of Dublin, which, as the inhabitants were taxed for the support of the officers appointed by the crown, gave great offence. In the south, also, there existed serious disturbances. Men, called “Right Boys” banded together in order to defraud the Protestant clergy of their incomes. For this purpose the farmers entered into a combination, under the sanction of an oath, neither to compound for tithes, nor to assist any clergyman drawing them. This insurrection commenced in Kerry and the combination soon extended to Cork and other neighbouring counties, where the insurgents marched in large bodies, administering their oath in the name of Captain Right, giving out their laws, and punishing those who broke their faith. In these proceedings they were secretly encouraged by many gentlemen of landed property, who hoped from their violence that their estates might be exonerated from tithes; but when the insurgents proceeded to limit the rents of land, to increase the price of labour, and to oppose the collection of hearth-money, then an outcry was raised by these landlords against their designs, and an act was passed in 1787 for preventing tumultuous and illegal assemblies. Upon inquiry it was discovered that the clergy instead of receiving one-tenth scarcely received one-twentieth of the produce, and that the insurrection was owing to the avarice of the landlords, who charged the peasantry six pounds an acre for their land, and yet made them work for fivepence per day. It was also found that some landlords had excited their tenants to rob the clergy, for the purpose of adding the value of the tithes to their rack-rents, and that the magistrates had in several instances connived at the outrages. These troubles passed over, but the same spirit of disaffection towards the government still existed in Ireland. And this, perhaps, was increased by the contests which took place in the Irish parliament between the patriotic band, headed by Mr. Grattan, and those who adhered to government. It has been seen that at the time the regency bill was discussed in the British parliament, the Irish were in favour of the Prince of Wales. An address to him was carried by a large majority in the Irish parliament, and when the lord-lieutenant refused to forward it, commissioners were deputed to present it, as before narrated. Encouraged by his success in the matter of the address Mr. Grattan proposed several bills of a popular description, which were carried. But this patriotic bias did not long continue. When his majesty recovered, then many who had voted against government changed their sentiments, and again supported it. The very men who had voted for the introduction of the popular bills proposed by Grattan, on the committal of them gave their votes against them, and they were rejected. Hitherto the professed principles of the Marquess of Buckingham’s government had been strict economy, but when this struggle terminated every source of influence was thrown open in order to prevent future opposition to its measures. This system of corrupt influence was continued after the Earl of Westmoreland was appointed lord-lieutenant, in 1730, notwithstanding strenuous opposition had been made to it by the patriotic party. In order to render their opposition more systematic and strong, this party formed themselves into a Whig club, similar to that in London, and at their meeting arranged plans of parliamentary tactics, assigning to each member his particular post. The declared objects for which this association was pledged were bills for the limitations of places and pensions; for excluding certain descriptions of placemen, &c., from parliament; to disqualify revenue-officers from voting; to repeal the Dublin Police Bill; and to secure the responsibility of public officers in regard to payments from the treasury. But the efforts of the patriotic party were vain. When they banded together for these purposes they were unable to oppose government effectually, and when a new election took place in 1791, they rather lost strength than otherwise. Such was the state of affairs in Ireland when the French revolution took place. This event was looked upon by the mass of the Irish with strong sensations of joy. Ever disposed to revolt, they looked upon it as the harbinger of their own liberty. Meetings were held to celebrate its anniversary in different places, and also for the discussion of politics. The chief topics at these meetings were parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation, in favour of which strong resolutions were entered into with a view of intimidating government to concede them. In Dublin a society was formed, under the title of “United Irishmen,” and which declared itself to be “a union of Irishmen of every religious persuasion, in order to obtain a complete reform of the legislature, founded on the principles of civil, political, and religious liberty.” Against this and similar associations government issued a proclamation, interdicting all seditious assemblies, and commanding the magistrates, if necessary, to disperse them by military force. Still the society of United Irishmen resolved to persevere. It issued a counter proclamation, exhorting the volunteer companies which had been formed in Dublin to take up arms for the maintenance of public tranquillity against domestic and foreign foes, and recommending the Protestants to unite cordially with the Papists for the purpose of obtaining universal emancipation and a representative legislature. This agitation led government, in the session of 1792, to grant some new indulgences to the Papists, but these by no means satisfied them. They still persevered in seeking a redress of grievances, and in order to lay before government the sentiments of the collective body of Catholics, a secret committee for managing the political concerns of the Irish Catholics, which had long subsisted in Dublin, fixed on the plan of a convention of delegates from the several towns and counties, to be elected by persons deputed, two from each parish. At the same time this committee thought proper to disavow all dangerous tenets respecting the excommunication of princes, the persecution of heretics, the violation of oaths, the infallibility of the pope, &c., and to renounce all claims to forfeited estates, and all designs of subverting the present establishment. The convention met in December, 1792, and after various displays of eloquence, voted a petition to the king, stating the grievances, patience, and long-tried loyalty of his Catholic subjects, and dwelling particularly on the deprivation of the elective franchise. This petition was presented by deputation, and received graciously by his majesty, who, when the Irish parliament met on the 10th of January, 1793, pressed on its attention such measures as might be most likely to strengthen and cement a general union of sentiment among all classes and descriptions of his Catholic subjects, in support of the established constitution. In consequence of this recommendation Mr. Secretary Hobart brought the bill of relief into the house of commons; the chief enacting clause of which enabled the Catholics to exercise and enjoy all civil and military offices, and places of trust or profit under the crown, under certain restrictions. This privilege was not to extend so far as to enable any Roman Catholic to sit or vote in either house of parliament, or to fill the office of lord-lieutenant or lord chancellor, or judge in either of the three courts of record or admiralty, or keeper of the privy-seal, secretary of state, lieutenant or custos rotulorum of counties, or privy-counsellor, or master in chancery, or a general on the staff, or sheriff of any county, &c. This bill passed with few dissentient voices, and though it fell short of complete emancipation, it was supposed to contain all that the executive government, could, at this time, without too violent an exertion, effect; upon which account it was received with gratitude. As a further concession to Ireland, a libel bill, similar to that of England, was passed; the power of the crown to grant pensions on the Irish establishment was limited to the sum of £80,000; and certain descriptions of placemen and pensioners were excluded from the privilege of sitting in the house of commons. His majesty also declared his acceptance of a limited sum, fixed at £225,000 for the expenses of his civil list, in lieu of the hereditary revenues of the crown. Having thus conciliated opposition, government carried several bills for the safety of the country. Among these were the alien and traitorous correspondence bills, analogous to those of England; a bill to prevent arms and ammunition from being imported, or kept without license; and another “to prevent the election or appointment of assemblies,” purporting to represent the people or any number of the people, under pretence of preparing or presenting petitions, &c., to the king or either house of parliament, for alteration of matters established by law, or redress of alleged grievances in church or state. As a further measure for securing the safety of the country, a bill was passed for raising a body of militia by ballot, to serve the period of four years. This measure, how-over, gave rise to discontent and outrage. As each person, on whom the lot fell, was obliged to serve unless he could procure a substitute or pay a large fine, it was considered a heavy grievance. To alleviate the burden, subscriptions for raising recruits were adopted, and insurance offices established to indemnify individuals on the payment of a stated sum. It was not, however, without great difficulty that recruits could be raised; the peasantry imagining, that, as was the case in the American war, if they joined the militia, they should be sent out of the kingdom. This caused discontents and riots, which cost the lives of many persons. But apart from this, there were other causes which produced disturbances in this unhappy country. About the year 1784, a set of insurgents, called “Defenders,” succeeded the White Boys. These arose from a quarrel between some Catholics and Protestants, in the county of Armagh, the former of whom, being possessed of arms, overcame their opponents. Enraged at this defeat the Protestants began to take arms from the Catholics; styling themselves “Peep-of-day Boys,” from their breaking into the houses of their opponents at break of day. On the contrary, those who strove to prevent them called themselves “Defenders;” but these, in 1789, seem to have been regularly organised, prepared for assault as well as defence, and, becoming private aggressors, committed some atrocious murders. Their outrages attracted the notice of parliament, and a secret committee of the lords in this session was appointed to make a report of their proceedings and also of the “United Irishmen.” At the time when this committee made their report, they had extended their associations through several counties, which associations assembled by night to learn the use of arms, and also for the purpose of plundering houses and murdering the protestants, and especially the established clergy. In many parts of the country, indeed, gentlemen were obliged to quit their houses, or to place soldiers therein for defence. It was hoped that the Catholic Relief Bill would have the effect of conciliating the marauders, but it failed to produce this effect. The principle of contention, in fact, still remained in full force. By this bill the Catholics were vested with the elective franchise; and now the question between them and the Protestants was, whether they should form a part of the government. They had gained much, but they wanted more, and so the system of agitation and outrage was still continued.