opposition by any paltry motive of obtaining place or power; but if by other ministers the ambition of Buonaparte was likely to receive a greater check; if the tone and spirit of the country were more likely to be supported under the management of men of greater talents, and of more elevated minds, he must wish to see the government of the country in the hands of such men."

On the 19th of April, 1804, Lord Carlisle obtained a majority against ministers, 31 to 30, on a motion for " an humble address to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to give directions that there be laid before the House an account of the date of instructions sent to the officer commanding the naval force in the East Indies, previous to His Majesty's message to Parliament on the rupture with France."

When the Earl of Liverpool (then Lord Hawkesbury) on the 30th of April, 1804, requested the Marquis of Stafford to postpone his motion respecting the defence of the country, Lord Carlisle again manifested his disapprobation of the Addington administration, by observing "that if the cause of the noble lord's request was that His Majesty's ministers were about to retire from the situations they then held, such a circumstance would send every noble lord and every man in the House home, contented and rejoiced."

In the debate on the Address, 15th January, 1805, Lord Carlisle, while he agreed to the address, protested against being pledged to approve of the conduct of government with regard to the war with Spain; not merely with reference to the war itself, but with reference to the manner in which it had been commenced.

400

When, on the 21st of February, 1805, it was proposed by government to suspend the standing orders of the House of Lords for the purpose of rapidly passing the Irish Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, the Earl of Carlisle contended "that whatever reasons there might be for continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus in Ireland, there could be none for treating Parliament in that summary way. Acts of Parlia ment were not subject to apoplexy. Their dissolution was

endeavoured to restore public tranquillity in America. Notwithstanding this previous failure, Lord North persevered in his efforts; and accordingly, in 1778, the Earl of Carlisle repaired to America, in the character of one of His Majesty's commissioners for the purpose of restoring peace. He was accompanied by Governor Johnstone, who was included in the mission, and by Mr. Eden, afterwards Lord Auckland. It is well known that their joint efforts were ineffectual; and that all their arguments failed to persuade the Americans to return under the government of Great Britain; but it was acknowledged by all parties that the noble Lord at the head of the embassy executed the office entrusted to him in a manner that redounded greatly to his honour.

Soon after their return, Mr. Eden published four letters, which he addressed to his patron, Lord Carlisle, on the spirit of party, the financial condition of the country, and the representations of Ireland respecting a free trade. Immediately after this, in October 1780, the Earl of Carlisle, who had been nominated lord lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire, was appointed viceroy of Ireland; whither he was accompanied by his friend, Mr. Eden, who, in the capacity of chief secretary, managed the interests of England in the Parliament of the sister kingdom.

The period at which his Lordship was called upon to preside over the affairs of Ireland was peculiarly arduous and critical. The administration of Lord North had become odious; America had boldly thrown off her allegiance; and various parts of the empire had strongly marked their disapprobation of the measures of government. Ireland having been drained of all the regular troops for the purpose of carrying on the contest in America, the inhabitants had associated for their own defence and protection; and an army of volunteers, officered by gentlemen of rank and fortune, and headed by the Earl of Charlemont, was in complete possession of the country. The situation of a viceroy was therefore extremely delicate; more especially as a formidable and increasing party in opposition tended not a little to embarrass those

entrusted with the government, and obliged them at times to deviate from the course which had been chalked out for their conduct. Yet, notwithstanding these circumstances, the administration of the Earl of Carlisle was accompanied with many circumstances calculated to conciliate popular favour, and to meliorate the condition of an unhappy people. It was during his Lordship's government that a national bank was established; and many excellent plans were formed and bills passed for encreasing the trade of a portion of the empire unjustly deprived of many privileges and immunities to which it was entitled.

In the mean time, the existing British cabinet was threatened with destruction. Lord North, unfortunate in his attempts to subjugate America, and perceiving the storm that was gathering around him, wished to escape its fury by withdrawing from public affairs. The Marquis of Rockingham, the Duke of Portland, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Windham, and their political adherents, had, in fact, already hunted the minister into their toils, and were preparing to divide his spoils. About the end of March, 1782, an entire change took place, and the government of Ireland fell to the share of the Duke of Portland.

This event occurred at a period when the Earl of Carlisle happened to be negotiating the repeal of so much of the statute of George I. as affected the legislative independence of Ireland; and it was accompanied with some circumstances that rendered his recal far from agreeable. The Irish parliament, however, was not unmindful of the services of the viceroy; for, after the appointment and arrival of his successor, the House of Commons, on the 15th April 1782, passed the following vote: "That the thanks of this house be presented to the Right Honourable Frederic Earl of Carlisle, for the wisdom and prudence of his administration, and for his uni form and unremitted attention to promote the welfare of this kingdom." Thus ended the viceregal government of Lord Carlisle in Ireland. During its continuance, great benefits appear to have been contemplated in behalf of the people of

that country; and as much was achieved as the short period of the noble Lord's residence, and his sudden and unexpected recal would permit.

The demise, however, of that great and disinterested patriot, the Marquis of Rockingham, dissolved all the hopes and projects of his co-adjutors. From that moment, a spirit of personal aggrandisement, which had been checked by his virtues, appeared to infect their councils, and to spread jealousy and suspicion among their ranks. In consequence of the subsequent changes, we find the Earl of Carlisle enjoying the honourable appointment of steward of the household; and he soon after succeeded to the still more dignified and confidential one of lord privy seal. But a variety of important alterations soon ensued. It became difficult to preserve a firm footing amidst the volcanic explosions of politics. At length the extraordinary genius of one man for a while tranquillized the tempest until the French revolution became the prognostic of a new and still more portentous storm.

During the discussions that took place in Parliament in 1789, relative to the regency, Lord Carlisle took an active part in favour of the claims of the heir-apparent. The opinions of the people were greatly divided on this subject. In Ireland, it is true, the parliament evinced a decided inclination to consider the Prince of Wales as of right the temporary governor of the kingdom during the incapacity of his royal father. But it was otherwise in this country; for while some broadly asserted that the prince had the same hereditary right to the full exercise of the powers of royalty, although in trust, that he would have had in the case of the actual demise of the sovereign; others maintained the converse of that proposition, and spurned the idea of an hereditary ownership, as something savouring of the obsolete pretensions and exploded doctrines of the house of Stuart. Mr. Pitt declared, "that the Prince of Wales had no more right to the regency than any other subject."

It is well known that the House of Commons passed three resolutions in conformity to the sentiments of the prime

minister. When the subject came before the House of Peers, a warm debate took place, in the course of which the Earl of Carlisle, in a brief but elegant speech, asserted the claims of the Prince of Wales. It was his lordship's opinion, that

66

as a deficiency in one branch of the legislature had been proved, that deficiency ought to be supplied, and that the circumstances of the times were fully sufficient to direct tne wisdom of parliament how to accomplish that object, without having recourse to periods dissimilar in all respects. He therefore deprecated the idea of searching for precedents to influence their proceedings; and as to the phantom of right which had been so much contended for, he considered it as a false light, meant to bewilder and lead their lordships from the way of their duty, while the whole nation pointed direct to the heir-apparent." His Lordship concluded by hinting, with a truly prophetic spirit, that if the peers swerved from the right course, the example would not be imitated in Ireland.

In 1791 we find his Lordship once more acting in opposition to Mr. Pitt's administration. At the period we allude to, the Turks and Russians were still at war, and the successes of Catharine II. were such as to indicate the speedy downfall of the Ottoman empire. This princess, however, notwithstanding her masculine ambition, perceived that the time was not quite arrived when she could place a successor on the throne of Constantine, and garrison the ancient Byzantium with her armies. She expressed herself content, therefore, with the fortress of Oczakow, and assumed great credit for this moderation, although it was evident that the possession of that fortress would enable her to retain the Crimea, and in the case of a future contest, (which she had always the means of provoking) would render her efforts more destructive to the enemy. In this state of affairs it was determined by the English ministry that Great Britain should arm to oppose the claims of Russia, and vindicate the cause of the Turks; and on the 28th of March, 1791, a message from the King was brought down to both Houses of Parliament,