his majesty during the last session. In introducing this motion, the
Earl of Shelburne declared that the government of Ireland had been
abdicated, and that the people would be justified, by the principles of
the constitution and the laws of self-preservation, in taking back its
power into their own hands. In the course of his speech he read the
address of both houses of the Irish parliament, which declared that
nothing less than free trade would rescue that country from ruin; and
he asserted that all classes of society concurred in this opinion.
Ministers were defended by Lord Hillsborough, who maintained that no
delay could be fairly imputed to them; that measures for the relief of
Ireland must emanate from parliament, and were not to be entered upon
without due information and consideration; and that ministers had been
active in collecting such information and making arrangements, the
result of which would shortly be laid before the house. The debate was
chiefly rendered remarkable by some words uttered by Earl Gower, who had
lately retired from the administration. After stating that he must, in
fairness, oppose the motion, as ministers required a few days for
their exculpation, he remarked:--"I have presided for some years at the
council-table, but have seen such things pass of late that no man
of honour or conscience could any longer sit there." The motion was
rejected by eighty-two against thirty-seven.

LORD OSSORY'S ATTACK ON MINISTERS RESPECTING IRELAND.

On the same day that Shelburne made his motion, Lord North communicated
some additional papers respecting Ireland, and gave notice, that he
would, in about a week, move for a committee of the whole house to enter
upon this subject. Opposition, however, seem to have considered Ireland
a vulnerable point in the phalanx of the ministry; and before the time
intimated by Lord North had expired, the Earl of Upper Ossory moved a
vote of censure in the commons upon ministers for their neglect of the
affairs of that country. This motion was seconded by Lord Middleton, and
supported by Dunning, Burke, and Charles Fox, who, in general pursued
the dangerous course of drawing parallels between the situation of
Ireland and that of America. It was asserted, for instance, that
ministers having failed in reducing the colonies by force, were ready
to make large concessions to Ireland; but that the Irish people had
suffered more from the loss of her share in the trade of