East India Board, April 12, 1822.My dear B——,I yesterday communicated your sentiments on the proposed manner of bringing forward the Catholic question to Plunket, who expressed himself highly flattered by the confidence which you placed in his opinion. He has to-day gone down to Dropmore, and returns to-morrow. The outline of the plan which he is disposed to recommend to remedy the most pressing grievances on the subjects of the tithe, is to enable incumbents to agree for a composition for twenty-one years with thelandlords, and the tithes then to be collected as county rates, and the receipts to be good in payment of rent. This is the outline; but the detail must be matter of great difficulty, since, though this may apply to future contracts, I fear that as the majority of the peasantry are for election purposes life tenants, it will not be easy to increase their rent to the landlords by the amount of what will be payable for tithes. As yet this has only been discussed by him with Lord Liverpool and Goulburn, so of course you will feel the necessity of not communicating upon it with any one.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.
East India Board, April 12, 1822.
My dear B——,
I yesterday communicated your sentiments on the proposed manner of bringing forward the Catholic question to Plunket, who expressed himself highly flattered by the confidence which you placed in his opinion. He has to-day gone down to Dropmore, and returns to-morrow. The outline of the plan which he is disposed to recommend to remedy the most pressing grievances on the subjects of the tithe, is to enable incumbents to agree for a composition for twenty-one years with thelandlords, and the tithes then to be collected as county rates, and the receipts to be good in payment of rent. This is the outline; but the detail must be matter of great difficulty, since, though this may apply to future contracts, I fear that as the majority of the peasantry are for election purposes life tenants, it will not be easy to increase their rent to the landlords by the amount of what will be payable for tithes. As yet this has only been discussed by him with Lord Liverpool and Goulburn, so of course you will feel the necessity of not communicating upon it with any one.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
East India Board, April 16, 1822.My dear B——,The proposed meeting on the course which it might be expedient to adopt respecting the Catholic question, took place this morning. As the persons invited to it were only those members of the House of Commons who had last year been named to bring in the Bill, I advised Fremantle not to come, since it would only excite jealousy to see us endeavouring to secure a majority by introducing any one who had not on former occasions been called into council on the subject.The persons present were Tierney, Newport, Parnell, Canning, Grant, Phillimore, Plunket, and myself.Tierney expressed a very strong opinion as to the detriment the general question had received from not having been taken up immediately upon the meeting of Parliament, from Lord Londonderry's declaration on the first day against any discussion of it, and from Plunket's language on Canning's notice, but declined giving any advice as to the course to be pursued under existing circumstances at so late a period of the session, and after Canning's notice of the limited motion.Newport, though agreeing in regretting that earlier measures had not been taken, yet distinctly admitted that the question had so much varied by what had taken place, that it could not now be agitated with advantage.Grant thought that in the first instance the general motion had better have been brought forward, but that Lord Londonderry's declaration and Plunket's opinion, to which he was disposed implicitly to defer, were sufficient reasons for delaying it till next year. Altogether the result will be that Plunket will declare his decided intention of postponing it till next year.Canning is sanguine in his expectation of increased support or rather neutrality of former adversaries, but Tierney doubts whether members of the House of Commons will be as ready to come to town on the limited as the general measure. He admitted, however, that the call which has been ordered for the 24th may go far to remove this objection.I find the Orange party are loud in their abuse of Lord Wellesley for shutting himself up at the Phœnix Park, lying in bed all day, seeing nobody, and only communicating with Secretary Gregory by letter. Indeed, I believe that the latter is more than he often favours Secretaries Peel and Goulburn with.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.Your account of the King's health rather surprises me, as we all thought him, when last in town, to be looking decidedly better than he had been, for some time.
East India Board, April 16, 1822.
My dear B——,
The proposed meeting on the course which it might be expedient to adopt respecting the Catholic question, took place this morning. As the persons invited to it were only those members of the House of Commons who had last year been named to bring in the Bill, I advised Fremantle not to come, since it would only excite jealousy to see us endeavouring to secure a majority by introducing any one who had not on former occasions been called into council on the subject.
The persons present were Tierney, Newport, Parnell, Canning, Grant, Phillimore, Plunket, and myself.
Tierney expressed a very strong opinion as to the detriment the general question had received from not having been taken up immediately upon the meeting of Parliament, from Lord Londonderry's declaration on the first day against any discussion of it, and from Plunket's language on Canning's notice, but declined giving any advice as to the course to be pursued under existing circumstances at so late a period of the session, and after Canning's notice of the limited motion.
Newport, though agreeing in regretting that earlier measures had not been taken, yet distinctly admitted that the question had so much varied by what had taken place, that it could not now be agitated with advantage.
Grant thought that in the first instance the general motion had better have been brought forward, but that Lord Londonderry's declaration and Plunket's opinion, to which he was disposed implicitly to defer, were sufficient reasons for delaying it till next year. Altogether the result will be that Plunket will declare his decided intention of postponing it till next year.
Canning is sanguine in his expectation of increased support or rather neutrality of former adversaries, but Tierney doubts whether members of the House of Commons will be as ready to come to town on the limited as the general measure. He admitted, however, that the call which has been ordered for the 24th may go far to remove this objection.
I find the Orange party are loud in their abuse of Lord Wellesley for shutting himself up at the Phœnix Park, lying in bed all day, seeing nobody, and only communicating with Secretary Gregory by letter. Indeed, I believe that the latter is more than he often favours Secretaries Peel and Goulburn with.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
Your account of the King's health rather surprises me, as we all thought him, when last in town, to be looking decidedly better than he had been, for some time.
THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
House of Commons, Five o'clock, April 18, 1822.My dear Duke,I should have sent your note to Canning, but I have just seen him and put it into his hands, saying that I had been prevented from attending the meeting of Mr. Plunket, or I should have taken that opportunity of explaining to him by your desire your views on his proposed question: that I could not do it better now than by putting into his hands a note which you had written to me on the subject, and which you had since desired me to show him. He immediately read your note, thanked me, and thus the matter ended. He was interrupted by persons coming to speak to him, and sitting behind him (which I did at the time), he could not well have entered into any discussion had he been so disposed, indeed there was not much to be said to me upon it.I came to town purposely at your desire to attend Plunket's meeting, and had no conception it was a select party till I got a note from Wynn, describing it as such to me.The King is come to town in bad humour at breaking up his Brighton party, and determined to stay as short a time, and to do as little in the way of publicappearances, as possible, and which his Ministers are strongly urging him to do. I suppose you will come up for the Drawing-room if you don't for the Levee. We are in much better spirits, in general appearances and prospects in the House, and though Ireland will create much discussion, and also Londonderry's agriculture propositions, still there is no doubt we shall get the Session much sooner closed than usual. You shall hear from me, if anything occurs, from day to day, before you come up.Ever most faithfully yours,W. H. F.
House of Commons, Five o'clock, April 18, 1822.
My dear Duke,
I should have sent your note to Canning, but I have just seen him and put it into his hands, saying that I had been prevented from attending the meeting of Mr. Plunket, or I should have taken that opportunity of explaining to him by your desire your views on his proposed question: that I could not do it better now than by putting into his hands a note which you had written to me on the subject, and which you had since desired me to show him. He immediately read your note, thanked me, and thus the matter ended. He was interrupted by persons coming to speak to him, and sitting behind him (which I did at the time), he could not well have entered into any discussion had he been so disposed, indeed there was not much to be said to me upon it.
I came to town purposely at your desire to attend Plunket's meeting, and had no conception it was a select party till I got a note from Wynn, describing it as such to me.
The King is come to town in bad humour at breaking up his Brighton party, and determined to stay as short a time, and to do as little in the way of publicappearances, as possible, and which his Ministers are strongly urging him to do. I suppose you will come up for the Drawing-room if you don't for the Levee. We are in much better spirits, in general appearances and prospects in the House, and though Ireland will create much discussion, and also Londonderry's agriculture propositions, still there is no doubt we shall get the Session much sooner closed than usual. You shall hear from me, if anything occurs, from day to day, before you come up.
Ever most faithfully yours,
W. H. F.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.My dear B——,It would give me the greatest pleasure to deliver your message to the King, if I could find the opportunity of any other business to desire an audience, but I think, upon consideration, you will think that it might more properly be made the subject of a letter from yourself to Sir Andrew Barnard, as Gentleman-in-Waiting, or directly to the King, than of a note from me.I am myself such a mere novice in matters of etiquette, that I should not place the least confidence in my own judgment on such a point, but should readily submit to yours, if I had not this morning consulted my uncle Tom, who gave the same opinion which I had previously formed. I have not yet had an opportunity of any conversation with C——, having only seen him last night while I was in labour of a speech, but I shall be very glad to see the paper which you mention.Grant's speech was excellent, better than I ever before heard from him, but I do not believe you or any other Lord-Lieutenant would like him as a secretary, as his warmest friends admit his inefficiency and idleness. His total neglect of his correspondence with this country, after repeated friendly admonition, was really inexcusable. We are nearly in the same state with respect to Lord Wellesley, which I trust is only owing to his illness. It is very well for a Lord-Lieutenant or Secretary to say that they act on their own responsibility, but during the sitting of Parliament those upon whom that responsibility really and efficiently falls, have arightto expect to know their views of the situation of Ireland and of the course to be pursued. Upon none of the great points of Tithes, Magistracy, Police, &c., have we yet heard a syllable, nor any view of the state of the country, for the last month. Were Lord Wellesley well, I should certainly write to him myself to tell him confidentially the complaint which arises from his silence, but under the circumstances of his illness I had rather that even if you should write to him you should not advert to what I have mentioned. Adieu. I must go down for Reform in Parliament, which owing to Lord Londonderry's hoarseness, would rest on Peel and me, if Canning does not, as I expect, take the labouring oar, and be the grand reformer of the night.Ever yours affectionately,C. W. W.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.
My dear B——,
It would give me the greatest pleasure to deliver your message to the King, if I could find the opportunity of any other business to desire an audience, but I think, upon consideration, you will think that it might more properly be made the subject of a letter from yourself to Sir Andrew Barnard, as Gentleman-in-Waiting, or directly to the King, than of a note from me.
I am myself such a mere novice in matters of etiquette, that I should not place the least confidence in my own judgment on such a point, but should readily submit to yours, if I had not this morning consulted my uncle Tom, who gave the same opinion which I had previously formed. I have not yet had an opportunity of any conversation with C——, having only seen him last night while I was in labour of a speech, but I shall be very glad to see the paper which you mention.
Grant's speech was excellent, better than I ever before heard from him, but I do not believe you or any other Lord-Lieutenant would like him as a secretary, as his warmest friends admit his inefficiency and idleness. His total neglect of his correspondence with this country, after repeated friendly admonition, was really inexcusable. We are nearly in the same state with respect to Lord Wellesley, which I trust is only owing to his illness. It is very well for a Lord-Lieutenant or Secretary to say that they act on their own responsibility, but during the sitting of Parliament those upon whom that responsibility really and efficiently falls, have arightto expect to know their views of the situation of Ireland and of the course to be pursued. Upon none of the great points of Tithes, Magistracy, Police, &c., have we yet heard a syllable, nor any view of the state of the country, for the last month. Were Lord Wellesley well, I should certainly write to him myself to tell him confidentially the complaint which arises from his silence, but under the circumstances of his illness I had rather that even if you should write to him you should not advert to what I have mentioned. Adieu. I must go down for Reform in Parliament, which owing to Lord Londonderry's hoarseness, would rest on Peel and me, if Canning does not, as I expect, take the labouring oar, and be the grand reformer of the night.
Ever yours affectionately,
C. W. W.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.My dear B——,I have been to the Drawing-room and brought back for a wonder such a headache that I cannot write to you as fully as I should wish. The King only asked me how I did, but did not give me an opportunity of making your excuses. He looks well, I think, but I certainly have heard reports of dropsy on the chest, which agree too much with yours. The debate last night was very interesting. Rice, Grant, and Plunket, full of information and excellent speeches, the rest very indifferent.Ellis's furious tirade against the Catholics laid him open to a severe drubbing from Plunket, yet to say the plain truth, I fear that he was but too correct, and that the distinctive feature of the present conspiracy is, that in every part of Ireland it is exclusively Catholic both in its objects and composition.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.
My dear B——,
I have been to the Drawing-room and brought back for a wonder such a headache that I cannot write to you as fully as I should wish. The King only asked me how I did, but did not give me an opportunity of making your excuses. He looks well, I think, but I certainly have heard reports of dropsy on the chest, which agree too much with yours. The debate last night was very interesting. Rice, Grant, and Plunket, full of information and excellent speeches, the rest very indifferent.
Ellis's furious tirade against the Catholics laid him open to a severe drubbing from Plunket, yet to say the plain truth, I fear that he was but too correct, and that the distinctive feature of the present conspiracy is, that in every part of Ireland it is exclusively Catholic both in its objects and composition.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.My dear Lord,I take the liberty of forwarding to your Grace a copy of the speech I made on introducing my Bill to amend the Marriage Act, which I have published at the request of Lord Londonderry and others, who I presume think that the facts alluded to, and the cases cited, may essentially assist the Bill when it reaches the Upper House.We are, I think, upon the whole going on well in the House of Commons. I confess my mind has been much relieved since the discussion on Sir John Newport's motion on Monday. Plunket's speech was everything that could be wished, and set us quite right with the House as to Ireland; it had also had the effect of indirectly giving a lift to the general question respecting the Catholics.On my return to London last week I passed a day at Dropmore. I found Lord Grenville inclined to criticise most severely the Report of the Agricultural Committee, but exceedingly anxious on the subject of Canning's Bill. I must say I think the Agricultural Report bad in every sense, but as I apprehend Lord Londonderry does not mean to act in conformity with the spirit in which it is drawn up, I trust it will be harmless as to effect.I suppose Canning's Bill will pass our House—it will be a severe blow to the cause if it does not; it is reported that Lambton and Co. are anxious to vote against it, because Canning brings it in. In the House of Lords, perhaps, it will have more votes than the general question.I cannot conclude this party communication without expressing the very sincere regret I feel that your Grace should still be suffering from indisposition, but I trust that you now only want to recruit your strength.Believe me, your obliged and faithful,Joseph Phillimore.P.S.—The speech would have been out last week, but the proofs were unfortunately sent to a wrong address to me in the country, and I was some days before I could recover them.
Whitehall, April 25, 1822.
My dear Lord,
I take the liberty of forwarding to your Grace a copy of the speech I made on introducing my Bill to amend the Marriage Act, which I have published at the request of Lord Londonderry and others, who I presume think that the facts alluded to, and the cases cited, may essentially assist the Bill when it reaches the Upper House.
We are, I think, upon the whole going on well in the House of Commons. I confess my mind has been much relieved since the discussion on Sir John Newport's motion on Monday. Plunket's speech was everything that could be wished, and set us quite right with the House as to Ireland; it had also had the effect of indirectly giving a lift to the general question respecting the Catholics.
On my return to London last week I passed a day at Dropmore. I found Lord Grenville inclined to criticise most severely the Report of the Agricultural Committee, but exceedingly anxious on the subject of Canning's Bill. I must say I think the Agricultural Report bad in every sense, but as I apprehend Lord Londonderry does not mean to act in conformity with the spirit in which it is drawn up, I trust it will be harmless as to effect.
I suppose Canning's Bill will pass our House—it will be a severe blow to the cause if it does not; it is reported that Lambton and Co. are anxious to vote against it, because Canning brings it in. In the House of Lords, perhaps, it will have more votes than the general question.
I cannot conclude this party communication without expressing the very sincere regret I feel that your Grace should still be suffering from indisposition, but I trust that you now only want to recruit your strength.
Believe me, your obliged and faithful,
Joseph Phillimore.
P.S.—The speech would have been out last week, but the proofs were unfortunately sent to a wrong address to me in the country, and I was some days before I could recover them.
Political partisanship at this time sometimes exerted a pernicious influence over well-meaning men, hurrying them into the avowal of sentiments which under other circumstances they would long have hesitated to express. In this way a distinguished member of the peerage committed himself by some remarks on the conduct of the Duke of Buckingham, which the latter treated with characteristic spirit.
THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Stanhope Street, April 29, 1822.My dear Duke,I have just seen the Duke of Bedford's answer to your last letter, which leaves you no alternative but to come to town. The whole attack has been a premeditated one, and of the most unjust and illiberal nature. I think the manner you have taken it up is honourable to your character, and what every man who has a proper feeling must commend. The thing does not seem to have been whispered abroad.I will come to you the moment you come to town, if you will let me know. I shall be in the House of Commons upon Canning's motion. Sir W—— W—— has acted extremely well on the occasion, and really feels as your kindest and dearest friend ought; solely occupied in the whole proceeding by a regard to your honour, and character, and feeling. Nothing, I think, could have been better than the wording of both your letters.Ever most faithfully yours,W. H. F.
Stanhope Street, April 29, 1822.
My dear Duke,
I have just seen the Duke of Bedford's answer to your last letter, which leaves you no alternative but to come to town. The whole attack has been a premeditated one, and of the most unjust and illiberal nature. I think the manner you have taken it up is honourable to your character, and what every man who has a proper feeling must commend. The thing does not seem to have been whispered abroad.
I will come to you the moment you come to town, if you will let me know. I shall be in the House of Commons upon Canning's motion. Sir W—— W—— has acted extremely well on the occasion, and really feels as your kindest and dearest friend ought; solely occupied in the whole proceeding by a regard to your honour, and character, and feeling. Nothing, I think, could have been better than the wording of both your letters.
Ever most faithfully yours,
W. H. F.
LORD GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Dropmore, May 3, 1822.I need not tell you with how deep an interest I received my brother's letter and yours this morning. I think nothing can possibly have passed more properly, or more satisfactorily, and I derive the highest pleasure from it. It is no doubt a painful thing to be reduced to this course, but whatever be the objections to it, surely those are alone answerable for them whose wanton intemperance of abuse places men under the necessity of thus acting, in self-defence. The Duke of Bedford's disavowal, in the conclusion of the business, seems to have been manly and unequivocal, and the only real atonement he could make for the original most unprovoked insult.
Dropmore, May 3, 1822.
I need not tell you with how deep an interest I received my brother's letter and yours this morning. I think nothing can possibly have passed more properly, or more satisfactorily, and I derive the highest pleasure from it. It is no doubt a painful thing to be reduced to this course, but whatever be the objections to it, surely those are alone answerable for them whose wanton intemperance of abuse places men under the necessity of thus acting, in self-defence. The Duke of Bedford's disavowal, in the conclusion of the business, seems to have been manly and unequivocal, and the only real atonement he could make for the original most unprovoked insult.
THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Stanhope Street, May 7, 1822.My dear Duke,I am sure it must give you pleasure, as it does me, to hear from all sides, and all sorts of persons, one uniform expression of approbation of your conduct. When one is forced to take a step which places one's character before the public tribunal, it is most gratifying to feel afterwards that the step has been approved and sanctioned; that this is the case, I have not the shadow of a doubt, and I would not say so to you, if I had not received the most unequivocal proofs of it. I hear that even at Brookes' the comparison is greatly in your favour. No one can deny that your adversary has retracted his words, though he has done so in the only manly and honourable manner he could do it. Yesterday Charles Long conversed with me a great deal upon it, and said you had not only done benefit to the general cause of Government, but that you had served to put down that personal and unjust mode of proceeding which was gaining ground every day. He attacked the conduct of the Duke of B——, as being most improper and unjust; he said he had had an opportunity of repeating the same language the day before to the Duke of York, who, although a great personal friend of the Duke of B——, could not but admit that you were compelled to act as you had done, and that you had done so in the most dignified and gallant manner.I wish I could speak as flatteringly of the general conduct of the Government, but I own every day lessens my confidence in them; there is such a complete want of steadiness, and of an open manly uniformity of conduct, that I see no hopes of its going on.Although I have sealed my letter, I write to tell you a thing I forgot—namely, that Talbot of Malahide came to me yesterday, saying he considered the question to be of a personal nature, and feeling the highest regard, affection, and gratitude to your family, he could not think of voting upon it. That his party making it a general question, he could not vote against it, but that he should go away, which he did. I thought this a very handsome conduct, and said I should certainly take care to communicate it to you.W. H. F.
Stanhope Street, May 7, 1822.
My dear Duke,
I am sure it must give you pleasure, as it does me, to hear from all sides, and all sorts of persons, one uniform expression of approbation of your conduct. When one is forced to take a step which places one's character before the public tribunal, it is most gratifying to feel afterwards that the step has been approved and sanctioned; that this is the case, I have not the shadow of a doubt, and I would not say so to you, if I had not received the most unequivocal proofs of it. I hear that even at Brookes' the comparison is greatly in your favour. No one can deny that your adversary has retracted his words, though he has done so in the only manly and honourable manner he could do it. Yesterday Charles Long conversed with me a great deal upon it, and said you had not only done benefit to the general cause of Government, but that you had served to put down that personal and unjust mode of proceeding which was gaining ground every day. He attacked the conduct of the Duke of B——, as being most improper and unjust; he said he had had an opportunity of repeating the same language the day before to the Duke of York, who, although a great personal friend of the Duke of B——, could not but admit that you were compelled to act as you had done, and that you had done so in the most dignified and gallant manner.
I wish I could speak as flatteringly of the general conduct of the Government, but I own every day lessens my confidence in them; there is such a complete want of steadiness, and of an open manly uniformity of conduct, that I see no hopes of its going on.
Although I have sealed my letter, I write to tell you a thing I forgot—namely, that Talbot of Malahide came to me yesterday, saying he considered the question to be of a personal nature, and feeling the highest regard, affection, and gratitude to your family, he could not think of voting upon it. That his party making it a general question, he could not vote against it, but that he should go away, which he did. I thought this a very handsome conduct, and said I should certainly take care to communicate it to you.
W. H. F.
DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, May 11, 1822.My dear Lord Duke,Lest Wynn or Fremantle should not write to-day (for it has so happened that I have seen neither of them), I just send your Grace a few lines to say that the Catholic cause prospered last night, the numbers being for the second reading of the Bill, 235; Noes, 223. Lord Duncannon told me that he hadneverknown a greater exertion made against any measure than against the second reading of this Bill. There were twenty-seven pairs in the House—i.e., of persons who appeared in the House. My own idea is that all further opposition to the measure in our House will be abandoned. It certainly is most satisfactory to find the House of Commons so steady on this point; but I must own I think the experiment has been a hazardous one; if the measure had failed, the general question must have been damaged. However, the result is most favourable, and I should not be very much astonished if this Bill was to pass your House. The most remarkable incident of last night was the declaration of Mr. Skeffington (Lord Oriel's son), that he had come to the conviction that the Catholic question must be carried sooner or later.I hear from all quarters that the Duke of York's canvass against the Bill has been most active. Peel certainly took a higher tone than he did last year. You will have heard from Wynn that the Swiss mission, the general question respecting missions, and the repeal of the Act which commuted offices for pensions, are to be made vital questions (as the phrase is). At this I exceeding rejoice. The post is going out.Believe me,Your Grace's most faithfully,J. Phillimore.
Whitehall, May 11, 1822.
My dear Lord Duke,
Lest Wynn or Fremantle should not write to-day (for it has so happened that I have seen neither of them), I just send your Grace a few lines to say that the Catholic cause prospered last night, the numbers being for the second reading of the Bill, 235; Noes, 223. Lord Duncannon told me that he hadneverknown a greater exertion made against any measure than against the second reading of this Bill. There were twenty-seven pairs in the House—i.e., of persons who appeared in the House. My own idea is that all further opposition to the measure in our House will be abandoned. It certainly is most satisfactory to find the House of Commons so steady on this point; but I must own I think the experiment has been a hazardous one; if the measure had failed, the general question must have been damaged. However, the result is most favourable, and I should not be very much astonished if this Bill was to pass your House. The most remarkable incident of last night was the declaration of Mr. Skeffington (Lord Oriel's son), that he had come to the conviction that the Catholic question must be carried sooner or later.
I hear from all quarters that the Duke of York's canvass against the Bill has been most active. Peel certainly took a higher tone than he did last year. You will have heard from Wynn that the Swiss mission, the general question respecting missions, and the repeal of the Act which commuted offices for pensions, are to be made vital questions (as the phrase is). At this I exceeding rejoice. The post is going out.
Believe me,
Your Grace's most faithfully,
J. Phillimore.
The long threatened inquiry into the diplomatic appointment given to Mr. Henry W. Wynn came on on the 14th of May, when Mr. Lennard in the House of Commons moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the diplomatic expenses of the Government. The result is thus described:—
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Friday.My dear B——,It was yesterday determined that the motion respecting Henry's mission on Tuesday, and the foreign missions in general for the following day, should both be considered as vital questions, decisive of the existence of the Administration. The case on the former is very strong. Londonderry will state that at the Congress of Vienna it had been decided that each of the great Powers should keep Ministers of calibre (quere, great bores) there. The reason of this was principally with the design of preventing the Cantons from falling back into their former dependence on France, in compliance with which it will be seen that each of them has Ministers there of the same rank with Henry. The general diplomatic arrangement was then laid before Parliament by estimate, in 1815 referred to a Committee, and acted upon. When Stratford Canning came away, the mission was first intended for Foster, then for Clanwilliam; and if Henry had declined, it would have been given to another person.With respect to the general question, it will be found that the expenditure is reduced 20,000l.below the estimate of 1815, and besides that, there will this year be the 10 per cent. upon all salaries. Lord Londonderry has to-day a meeting of all men in office to communicate this resolution to.It is singular enough that in each of the three first divisions, upon propositions the most adverse—viz., Webb Hall's, Ricardo, and Althorpe's—the minority should have been 24, 24, and 25, though composed of perfectly different persons.Peel shows, I think, more spirit and good judgment as to the course which we ought to pursue, than any man in the Cabinet.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.
Friday.
My dear B——,
It was yesterday determined that the motion respecting Henry's mission on Tuesday, and the foreign missions in general for the following day, should both be considered as vital questions, decisive of the existence of the Administration. The case on the former is very strong. Londonderry will state that at the Congress of Vienna it had been decided that each of the great Powers should keep Ministers of calibre (quere, great bores) there. The reason of this was principally with the design of preventing the Cantons from falling back into their former dependence on France, in compliance with which it will be seen that each of them has Ministers there of the same rank with Henry. The general diplomatic arrangement was then laid before Parliament by estimate, in 1815 referred to a Committee, and acted upon. When Stratford Canning came away, the mission was first intended for Foster, then for Clanwilliam; and if Henry had declined, it would have been given to another person.
With respect to the general question, it will be found that the expenditure is reduced 20,000l.below the estimate of 1815, and besides that, there will this year be the 10 per cent. upon all salaries. Lord Londonderry has to-day a meeting of all men in office to communicate this resolution to.
It is singular enough that in each of the three first divisions, upon propositions the most adverse—viz., Webb Hall's, Ricardo, and Althorpe's—the minority should have been 24, 24, and 25, though composed of perfectly different persons.
Peel shows, I think, more spirit and good judgment as to the course which we ought to pursue, than any man in the Cabinet.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Stanhope Street, May 16, 1822.My dear Duke,You will probably have heard from others the success of our whip yesterday. Nothing could be better; and, though probably our numbers may not be so many to-day, yet I should hope the relative strength of the division may be equal. The debate was all on our side, as well as the feeling of the House. Lord Nugent told me he should not vote to-day, nor should Lord Ebrington. They show their good taste in this. I understand Neville is very likely to vote with us.We are in better spirits, though the money question still hangs a dead weight. The South Sea have refused the contract, and Lushington told me last night the Bank would take the contract. I fear this will commit the Government more and more with the Bank, which has too much power already.Ever yours,W. H. F.
Stanhope Street, May 16, 1822.
My dear Duke,
You will probably have heard from others the success of our whip yesterday. Nothing could be better; and, though probably our numbers may not be so many to-day, yet I should hope the relative strength of the division may be equal. The debate was all on our side, as well as the feeling of the House. Lord Nugent told me he should not vote to-day, nor should Lord Ebrington. They show their good taste in this. I understand Neville is very likely to vote with us.
We are in better spirits, though the money question still hangs a dead weight. The South Sea have refused the contract, and Lushington told me last night the Bank would take the contract. I fear this will commit the Government more and more with the Bank, which has too much power already.
Ever yours,
W. H. F.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
East India Board, May 15, 1822.My dear B——,I agree entirely with what you say in your letter to Phillimore as to the absurdity of the distinction ofvitalandindifferentpoints. All ought to be vital.This is the course which Peel every day recommends. He has lately taken a much bolder and decided tone both in Parliament and Cabinet, and I have little doubt means to run for the lead of the House of Commons. It appears to me very probable that his object is to break up the Government, in the expectation that it will be impossible for the Opposition to substitute anything which can stand three months, and that he may then mould and form it at his pleasure. He has himself spoken to me of the advantage which would result from our retiring, and the certainty that we must return to power within three months. Does he think that that period would be sufficient for Opposition to pass the Catholic question?Wilberforce's disclaimer of any intention to reflect on me wasex proprio motu. It is curious that theMorning Chronicle, which not only inserted the misrepresentation, but made it the object of a leading paragraph, afterwards omitted the contradiction. This I was told, but on examination find it is not true.Report states that we are to have large divisions both to-day and to-morrow, and that all the loose fish come into our net.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.I have stated to Lord Londonderry and Peel, the impossibility of my supporting the Alien Bill, or interfering to persuade my friends to do it, but have assured them that I shall not dissuade them from it. I added that my wish would be to stay away, as I had done on the two last occasions of its renewal, but that I could not absolutely pledge myself to this, since I might be compelled to come down to answer comments on my absence.Pray tell me whether you have procured any clue which may enable us topatronizea newspaper.
East India Board, May 15, 1822.
My dear B——,
I agree entirely with what you say in your letter to Phillimore as to the absurdity of the distinction ofvitalandindifferentpoints. All ought to be vital.
This is the course which Peel every day recommends. He has lately taken a much bolder and decided tone both in Parliament and Cabinet, and I have little doubt means to run for the lead of the House of Commons. It appears to me very probable that his object is to break up the Government, in the expectation that it will be impossible for the Opposition to substitute anything which can stand three months, and that he may then mould and form it at his pleasure. He has himself spoken to me of the advantage which would result from our retiring, and the certainty that we must return to power within three months. Does he think that that period would be sufficient for Opposition to pass the Catholic question?
Wilberforce's disclaimer of any intention to reflect on me wasex proprio motu. It is curious that theMorning Chronicle, which not only inserted the misrepresentation, but made it the object of a leading paragraph, afterwards omitted the contradiction. This I was told, but on examination find it is not true.
Report states that we are to have large divisions both to-day and to-morrow, and that all the loose fish come into our net.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
I have stated to Lord Londonderry and Peel, the impossibility of my supporting the Alien Bill, or interfering to persuade my friends to do it, but have assured them that I shall not dissuade them from it. I added that my wish would be to stay away, as I had done on the two last occasions of its renewal, but that I could not absolutely pledge myself to this, since I might be compelled to come down to answer comments on my absence.
Pray tell me whether you have procured any clue which may enable us topatronizea newspaper.
DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Doctors' Commons, May 17, 1822.My dear Lord Duke,The debate took a turn last night we had not at all anticipated. Warre never mentioned Henry Wynn but in terms of civility and courtesy, and not only disclaimed all personal attack against him, but also every imputation against the arrangements which had led to his appointment. Lord Londonderry followed Warre, and explained the case, &c., &c.; and the only other person who took any part in the debate was Lord Normanby, who distinctly also declared against all allusion to the individual who held the appointment; and he had scarcely proceeded thus far before the House became so impatient that he was all but coughed down. Under these circumstances there was no opening for any of us, which for some reasons I regret, though upon the whole nothing could be more satisfactory than the tone and temper of the debate. I think the abstinence from personal attack must have been the result of previous arrangement, probably the more sober ones refused to concur in the vote on any other terms. A weaker case was never made out. Newport stayed away. Calcraft went out just before the division. Talbot, member for the County of Dublin, sent a message to Wynn by Plunket, to say that he would not vote against his brother. Carew, member for the County of Wexford, made a similar communication to me. Neville, I believe, voted with us; and Ebrington stayed away. Holmes told me that twenty-four came to the door after it was closed, of whom nineteen belonged to us.The most serious business we have now to look forward to is the new financial arrangement; and I must own that I dread the difficulties in which Van may involve us.Believe me, your Grace's very faithful,Joseph Phillimore.P.S.—The whole debate last night did not occupy two hours.The Catholic Peers' Bill stands for the third reading to-night; it is not to be opposed, at least not by those who have taken the lead against it. I hear that Lords Caledon and Gosford, Gosse and Wilton will vote for the Bill, the two first have hitherto always voted against the Catholics, the two latter have not voted on the question; an Irish bishop is also to vote with us. On the other hand, Lords Camden and Clancarty will not vote, and they have supported always the general measure. The Archbishop of York told me he thought several of the opposers of the general measure would stay away: this, I understand from other quarters, is the course he intends to adopt. Lord Grenville, I believe, will come to London for the debate in the House of Lords. I am afraid that the Bill will not be carried, but I am very sanguine in thinking that the majority in the Upper House will be very considerably diminished.Wilberforce made a point of staying to vote with us last night.
Doctors' Commons, May 17, 1822.
My dear Lord Duke,
The debate took a turn last night we had not at all anticipated. Warre never mentioned Henry Wynn but in terms of civility and courtesy, and not only disclaimed all personal attack against him, but also every imputation against the arrangements which had led to his appointment. Lord Londonderry followed Warre, and explained the case, &c., &c.; and the only other person who took any part in the debate was Lord Normanby, who distinctly also declared against all allusion to the individual who held the appointment; and he had scarcely proceeded thus far before the House became so impatient that he was all but coughed down. Under these circumstances there was no opening for any of us, which for some reasons I regret, though upon the whole nothing could be more satisfactory than the tone and temper of the debate. I think the abstinence from personal attack must have been the result of previous arrangement, probably the more sober ones refused to concur in the vote on any other terms. A weaker case was never made out. Newport stayed away. Calcraft went out just before the division. Talbot, member for the County of Dublin, sent a message to Wynn by Plunket, to say that he would not vote against his brother. Carew, member for the County of Wexford, made a similar communication to me. Neville, I believe, voted with us; and Ebrington stayed away. Holmes told me that twenty-four came to the door after it was closed, of whom nineteen belonged to us.
The most serious business we have now to look forward to is the new financial arrangement; and I must own that I dread the difficulties in which Van may involve us.
Believe me, your Grace's very faithful,
Joseph Phillimore.
P.S.—The whole debate last night did not occupy two hours.
The Catholic Peers' Bill stands for the third reading to-night; it is not to be opposed, at least not by those who have taken the lead against it. I hear that Lords Caledon and Gosford, Gosse and Wilton will vote for the Bill, the two first have hitherto always voted against the Catholics, the two latter have not voted on the question; an Irish bishop is also to vote with us. On the other hand, Lords Camden and Clancarty will not vote, and they have supported always the general measure. The Archbishop of York told me he thought several of the opposers of the general measure would stay away: this, I understand from other quarters, is the course he intends to adopt. Lord Grenville, I believe, will come to London for the debate in the House of Lords. I am afraid that the Bill will not be carried, but I am very sanguine in thinking that the majority in the Upper House will be very considerably diminished.
Wilberforce made a point of staying to vote with us last night.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
East India Board, May 17.My dear B——,I am on the whole extremely well satisfied with the issue of the two last debates, as the Opposition have entirely failed in the establishment of any case whatever, and did not appear to produce any effect on the House. Talbot of Malahide went away, expressly on the ground of declining a question which affected any connexion of yours personally. Newport also was absent, as were Ebrington and George. Neville, Wilberforce, Banks, and most of the country gentlemen voted with us. The places of several of those who stayed away from the Opposition were supplied by the Ponsonby's and Fitzwilliam's connexions, who had been absent the preceding night on account of Lord Fitzwilliam's death.I have already told you how much embarrassment I feel about the Alien Bill. Read your own speech of the 18th of June, 1816, and mine of the 20th of May in the same year, and I think that you will agree that we are a good deal hampered.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.We read the Catholic Bill a third time to-day. I am told that the second reading in the Lords will be fixed for the 31st of May.
East India Board, May 17.
My dear B——,
I am on the whole extremely well satisfied with the issue of the two last debates, as the Opposition have entirely failed in the establishment of any case whatever, and did not appear to produce any effect on the House. Talbot of Malahide went away, expressly on the ground of declining a question which affected any connexion of yours personally. Newport also was absent, as were Ebrington and George. Neville, Wilberforce, Banks, and most of the country gentlemen voted with us. The places of several of those who stayed away from the Opposition were supplied by the Ponsonby's and Fitzwilliam's connexions, who had been absent the preceding night on account of Lord Fitzwilliam's death.
I have already told you how much embarrassment I feel about the Alien Bill. Read your own speech of the 18th of June, 1816, and mine of the 20th of May in the same year, and I think that you will agree that we are a good deal hampered.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
We read the Catholic Bill a third time to-day. I am told that the second reading in the Lords will be fixed for the 31st of May.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
East India Board, May 20, 1822.My dear B——,The Duke of Portland has undertaken the management of Canning's Bill in the House of Lords. I fear that so long a postponement of it as you suggest, will hardly be thought expedient for the interests of the Bill. It had been much wished that it should be brought forward this week, but on account of Epsom it has been deferred till the following Friday. I shall be very sorry if you are prevented from attending, under all the particular circumstances in which you stand, and should even think that it might be worth while for you to come up and return next day. Lord Clare, Lord Gosford, Lord Caledon, and Lord Gage are mentioned among the new votes expected, but I am told that there are ten of them. Lord Headfort's proxy has been forgotten, and as he is in Italy cannot now be obtained. Lord Camden and Lord Clancarty will not vote. Could not you get Lord Torrington's proxy? I think he used to give you charge of it. Bulkeley hangs undecided about coming or staying away. Old St. Vincent is to take his seat and make a proxy. Lord Buckinghamshire is not yet ascertained.You do not mention anything on the subject of the Alien Bill, which, as I told you, I feel considerable difficulty about from the part which we have both taken. With respect to the Finance plan, I feel convinced that it must end where it ought to have begun, in an appropriation of part of the Sinking Fund, and that this will be done with more or less disguise and humbug, but that no regard for consistency will be sufficient to prevent a measure so essentially necessary.I will try what I can do to obtain a postponement of the Catholic Bill for you, but have little hope of success.Ever affectionately your,C. W. W.
East India Board, May 20, 1822.
My dear B——,
The Duke of Portland has undertaken the management of Canning's Bill in the House of Lords. I fear that so long a postponement of it as you suggest, will hardly be thought expedient for the interests of the Bill. It had been much wished that it should be brought forward this week, but on account of Epsom it has been deferred till the following Friday. I shall be very sorry if you are prevented from attending, under all the particular circumstances in which you stand, and should even think that it might be worth while for you to come up and return next day. Lord Clare, Lord Gosford, Lord Caledon, and Lord Gage are mentioned among the new votes expected, but I am told that there are ten of them. Lord Headfort's proxy has been forgotten, and as he is in Italy cannot now be obtained. Lord Camden and Lord Clancarty will not vote. Could not you get Lord Torrington's proxy? I think he used to give you charge of it. Bulkeley hangs undecided about coming or staying away. Old St. Vincent is to take his seat and make a proxy. Lord Buckinghamshire is not yet ascertained.
You do not mention anything on the subject of the Alien Bill, which, as I told you, I feel considerable difficulty about from the part which we have both taken. With respect to the Finance plan, I feel convinced that it must end where it ought to have begun, in an appropriation of part of the Sinking Fund, and that this will be done with more or less disguise and humbug, but that no regard for consistency will be sufficient to prevent a measure so essentially necessary.
I will try what I can do to obtain a postponement of the Catholic Bill for you, but have little hope of success.
Ever affectionately your,
C. W. W.
Thirty or forty years ago the public press was managed with much less talent and principle than the respectable portion of it now possesses. Personality and scurrility appear to have gone out of fashion, and such attacks as that from which the Duke of Buckingham suffered in the columns of a provincial paper, are of very rare occurrence.
LORD GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Dropmore, May 21, 1822.I learn from my brother that the Duke of Portland is to move the second reading of Canning's Bill, and that they talk of the 31st for it; that day being opportunely hitched in between the two important epochs of Ascot and Epsom. But these arrangements of days for Parliamentary business are always so uncertain, and so liable to be varied up to the last moment, that I have never found one got much previous communication of them; nor do I, to speak fairly, think that the want of it affords the smallest ground of offence. As to the yeomanry arrangements, it does not seem to me possible that the day of this motion could have been fixed in time to enable you to reconcile those two engagements.I shall be sorry if you are absent from the discussion of this Bill, for a thousand reasons that make one wish you present at it, and I still hope you will contrive to run up for that night only. But if that really cannot be, I will very willingly hold your proxy, supposing that I do not in the interval (and it is now little likely I should) receive some one that I cannot transfer. I now hold only Lord Carysfort's.On the other subject on which you write to me it is more difficult to advise. The least troublesome course no doubt is that which I have always pursued—to treat, and unaffectedly to consider, the whole tribe of newspaper libellers as unworthy of the smallest notice. And this was, on the first impression, the opinion which I expressed the other day to my brother, who wrote to me on this matter, in consequence of something your son had said to him. On reflection I do not feel as sure as at first, that I was right in this opinion, as applicable to your case and to the Aylesbury paper. To any idea of a complaint against him in the House of Lords I feel utterly averse. My recollection does not serve me to remember any instance since Lord Sandwich and Bishop Warburton in the beginning of the last reign, in which the House has interfered in case of general libel. I myself brought a printer before them for an attack on Bishop Watson, but then that, if I am not mistaken, was a case of attack for wordsspoken in Parliament, and not for general political conduct. If you prosecute, the right course is certainly that ofinformationin the King's Bench; for it would be most unseemly to allege that your character has really beenendamagedby such ribaldry.On the question itself, whether to prosecute or not, I really feel myself incompetent to advise. I have already said that my first impression was against it, but further consideration of the subject has so shaken that opinion, that I should be sorry now you laid the least stress upon it. Every man who goes into a court of law, and especially every man who attacks a newspaper there, does, under our blessed system of newspaper government, expose himself to a lottery, the chances of which no man can foresee, and out of which it would be much more desirable to keep himself. But, then, in this as in other cases, one may be driven to the wall, and obliged to do that which in itself one is far from wishing. That this is the case in this instance, certainly seems probable, and if it is, the decision is one which you alone can take for yourself; though if my own judgment were fully satisfied either way, I would certainly not hesitate to let you see it.Ever most affectionately yours,G.
Dropmore, May 21, 1822.
I learn from my brother that the Duke of Portland is to move the second reading of Canning's Bill, and that they talk of the 31st for it; that day being opportunely hitched in between the two important epochs of Ascot and Epsom. But these arrangements of days for Parliamentary business are always so uncertain, and so liable to be varied up to the last moment, that I have never found one got much previous communication of them; nor do I, to speak fairly, think that the want of it affords the smallest ground of offence. As to the yeomanry arrangements, it does not seem to me possible that the day of this motion could have been fixed in time to enable you to reconcile those two engagements.
I shall be sorry if you are absent from the discussion of this Bill, for a thousand reasons that make one wish you present at it, and I still hope you will contrive to run up for that night only. But if that really cannot be, I will very willingly hold your proxy, supposing that I do not in the interval (and it is now little likely I should) receive some one that I cannot transfer. I now hold only Lord Carysfort's.
On the other subject on which you write to me it is more difficult to advise. The least troublesome course no doubt is that which I have always pursued—to treat, and unaffectedly to consider, the whole tribe of newspaper libellers as unworthy of the smallest notice. And this was, on the first impression, the opinion which I expressed the other day to my brother, who wrote to me on this matter, in consequence of something your son had said to him. On reflection I do not feel as sure as at first, that I was right in this opinion, as applicable to your case and to the Aylesbury paper. To any idea of a complaint against him in the House of Lords I feel utterly averse. My recollection does not serve me to remember any instance since Lord Sandwich and Bishop Warburton in the beginning of the last reign, in which the House has interfered in case of general libel. I myself brought a printer before them for an attack on Bishop Watson, but then that, if I am not mistaken, was a case of attack for wordsspoken in Parliament, and not for general political conduct. If you prosecute, the right course is certainly that ofinformationin the King's Bench; for it would be most unseemly to allege that your character has really beenendamagedby such ribaldry.
On the question itself, whether to prosecute or not, I really feel myself incompetent to advise. I have already said that my first impression was against it, but further consideration of the subject has so shaken that opinion, that I should be sorry now you laid the least stress upon it. Every man who goes into a court of law, and especially every man who attacks a newspaper there, does, under our blessed system of newspaper government, expose himself to a lottery, the chances of which no man can foresee, and out of which it would be much more desirable to keep himself. But, then, in this as in other cases, one may be driven to the wall, and obliged to do that which in itself one is far from wishing. That this is the case in this instance, certainly seems probable, and if it is, the decision is one which you alone can take for yourself; though if my own judgment were fully satisfied either way, I would certainly not hesitate to let you see it.
Ever most affectionately yours,
G.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
House of Commons, May 23, 1822.My dear B——,I left your letter at Lord Bulkeley's house, and afterwards meeting him, urged him as strongly as I could to give his proxy, which, as he is applying to me for a cadet-ship for a Welsh lad, I could press further than I otherwise should. I am sorry to say, however, that I could not boast much of my success. He talked of the violence and bigotry of Carnarvonshire, which I do not believe really weigh with him, as they were more violent and bigoted when he formerly voted for the Catholics; but I believe the real reason is some promise which he has made to his wife. I cannot learn where Lord Torrington is in town, as he has no regular town house, but, as I am told, takes his letters at the House of Lords; so I have there left it for him. I spoke to Lord Cassilis about your proxy, which he will willingly attend to hold if necessary, but had expected you rather to give his.The new votes mentioned besides Lord Caledon, Lord Gosport, and Lord Clare, are Lord Gage, Lord Lucan, Lord Glasgow, Lord Wilton, Lord Maryborough, Lord Ormond, and I think Lord Suffield (but I am not sure which way the late Lord voted).Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.Frankland Lewis had a bad fall yesterday in the park, and was a good deal bruised, but did not, I hope, suffer materially. Lord Lonsdale had a worse a short time after, and broke two ribs and his collar-bone.
House of Commons, May 23, 1822.
My dear B——,
I left your letter at Lord Bulkeley's house, and afterwards meeting him, urged him as strongly as I could to give his proxy, which, as he is applying to me for a cadet-ship for a Welsh lad, I could press further than I otherwise should. I am sorry to say, however, that I could not boast much of my success. He talked of the violence and bigotry of Carnarvonshire, which I do not believe really weigh with him, as they were more violent and bigoted when he formerly voted for the Catholics; but I believe the real reason is some promise which he has made to his wife. I cannot learn where Lord Torrington is in town, as he has no regular town house, but, as I am told, takes his letters at the House of Lords; so I have there left it for him. I spoke to Lord Cassilis about your proxy, which he will willingly attend to hold if necessary, but had expected you rather to give his.
The new votes mentioned besides Lord Caledon, Lord Gosport, and Lord Clare, are Lord Gage, Lord Lucan, Lord Glasgow, Lord Wilton, Lord Maryborough, Lord Ormond, and I think Lord Suffield (but I am not sure which way the late Lord voted).
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
Frankland Lewis had a bad fall yesterday in the park, and was a good deal bruised, but did not, I hope, suffer materially. Lord Lonsdale had a worse a short time after, and broke two ribs and his collar-bone.
LORD BULKELEY TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Englefield Green, May 27, 1822.My dear Lord Duke,It is certainly most true that I promised your Grace to vote in favour of Mr. Canning's motion whenever it came into the House of Lords, and being conformable to my former votes and opinions, I should with pleasure have ranged myself under the standard of the party with which I had so long acted, had not a storm arisen in Wales on that question, in consequence of Sir Robert Williams's vote in the House of Commons, which I own to your Grace staggered my intention very much. It was plainly told me, that if I did not put water in my wine, all my popularity there would sink to the ground, and an opposition declared which would put me to great expense, and a very doubtful issue; and that it depended on my vote to allay the storm, especially as Sir Robert had raised it. At the head of these ultra anti-Catholics stand the Bishop of the diocese (Magendie), and all the parsons to a man, and Mr. Ashton Smith, Lord Kenyon, and Sir Robert Vaughan, and hundreds who look up to Lord Eldon and Mr. Peel, and who think that the King is hostile to the Catholics. I hope, therefore, I may be permitted to absent myself as I have few days to live, and those few I can pass with tolerable goodwill in my ownnatale solum, if I do not provoke their ardent feelings on a point which they have opinions like those of the University of Oxford. In my general support of Government under your standard, my Taffies are rejoiced, but upon the Catholic question they are raving mad.Hoping the Duchess is well, and your Grace, I am, my dear Lord Duke, with Lady B——'s joint best remembrances,Your ever faithful,W. B.
Englefield Green, May 27, 1822.
My dear Lord Duke,
It is certainly most true that I promised your Grace to vote in favour of Mr. Canning's motion whenever it came into the House of Lords, and being conformable to my former votes and opinions, I should with pleasure have ranged myself under the standard of the party with which I had so long acted, had not a storm arisen in Wales on that question, in consequence of Sir Robert Williams's vote in the House of Commons, which I own to your Grace staggered my intention very much. It was plainly told me, that if I did not put water in my wine, all my popularity there would sink to the ground, and an opposition declared which would put me to great expense, and a very doubtful issue; and that it depended on my vote to allay the storm, especially as Sir Robert had raised it. At the head of these ultra anti-Catholics stand the Bishop of the diocese (Magendie), and all the parsons to a man, and Mr. Ashton Smith, Lord Kenyon, and Sir Robert Vaughan, and hundreds who look up to Lord Eldon and Mr. Peel, and who think that the King is hostile to the Catholics. I hope, therefore, I may be permitted to absent myself as I have few days to live, and those few I can pass with tolerable goodwill in my ownnatale solum, if I do not provoke their ardent feelings on a point which they have opinions like those of the University of Oxford. In my general support of Government under your standard, my Taffies are rejoiced, but upon the Catholic question they are raving mad.
Hoping the Duchess is well, and your Grace, I am, my dear Lord Duke, with Lady B——'s joint best remembrances,
Your ever faithful,
W. B.
This is the last communication the writer addressed to his friend, as he died suddenly, at the age of sixty-nine, at Englefield Green, on the 3rd of June.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Dropmore, May 29, 1822.My dear B——,My uncle Tom writes to Lord Grenville: "My sister just tells me that she met Canning last night at Burlington House, who told her that he should write to you to-day to tell you that the Catholic question was put off in the House of Lords, in consequence of the death of Lord Grey's mother. I had heard from several people yesterday that it was not put off; and so much satisfaction was expressed at the day not being disturbed, that I am persuaded this new change will be extremely unpopular."No letter from Canning has arrived; but this probably proceeds from his directing to Maidenhead, which was the case with the last letter he wrote to Lord G——.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.What will my worthy colleagues in the Empire of the East do about thisfracasat Canton? Must they not shut up shop? On this head I have nothing to say to them. I am for sending out a detachment of capital convicts from the Old Bailey Sessions, since, provided they are allowed to hang a sufficient number, it is all the Chinese Government requires.
Dropmore, May 29, 1822.
My dear B——,
My uncle Tom writes to Lord Grenville: "My sister just tells me that she met Canning last night at Burlington House, who told her that he should write to you to-day to tell you that the Catholic question was put off in the House of Lords, in consequence of the death of Lord Grey's mother. I had heard from several people yesterday that it was not put off; and so much satisfaction was expressed at the day not being disturbed, that I am persuaded this new change will be extremely unpopular."
No letter from Canning has arrived; but this probably proceeds from his directing to Maidenhead, which was the case with the last letter he wrote to Lord G——.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
What will my worthy colleagues in the Empire of the East do about thisfracasat Canton? Must they not shut up shop? On this head I have nothing to say to them. I am for sending out a detachment of capital convicts from the Old Bailey Sessions, since, provided they are allowed to hang a sufficient number, it is all the Chinese Government requires.
Lord Eldon had not recovered his good humour, nor reconciled himself to the new servants his sovereign had called to his counsels, and when he could not express his dissatisfaction orally, he rarely failed to do so in writing to his confidential friends—now and then, however, with characteristic caution, denying the authorship of the bad jokes he took pains to circulate.[81]The proceedings of the Legislature he regarded with real alarm whenever their object was to alter what the public voice pronounced capable of amendment, or prune what was judged superfluous. The vote of the House of Commons on the 1st of March, for discontinuing the services of one of the Lords of the Admiralty, and that given on the 2nd of May for getting rid of one of the Postmasters-General, his Lordship called "stripping the Crown naked," and represents the King as suffering from severe illness, occasioned by these attacks, as he considers them, on the Royal prerogative.[82]His acknowledged talent as a lawyer, however, joined to his earnest advocacy of the cause of which he was one of the stoutest champions, ought to suggest allowances for such harmless exaggerations.
The Catholic question having been put off in the House of Lords till the 21st of June, other questions of a more popular character, including Parliamentary Reform, the Importation of Corn, the amelioration of the Criminal Code, the continuation of the Alien Act, the state of the Currency, and the Tithe system in Ireland, the influence of the Crown, and the suppression of the Slave Trade, came under consideration in this month.
The ball referred to in Mr. Fremantle's note, was given for the benefit of the suffering poor of Ireland at the King's Theatre, London, on the 30th of May, and produced 3500l.
THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
House of Commons, Five o'clock.My dear Duke,You can have no idea of the great impression which has been made on the public mind by these two last divisions. It has given courage and unity to our people at the same time, and I trust will enable us to stem the tide which has been setting against us for the latter weeks. The great question that still hangs upon us is the annuity transaction. The South Sea don't take it; the Bank are negotiating but disinclined; and from what I hear from good quarters, it will end in its being done by the Government, and though not actually from the Sinking Fund, still with the means of applying the Sinking Fund in case of failure. The whole project is of Vansittart, and therefore to be feared, but I hope ultimately we shall get over it, and satisfy the country gentlemen by taking off 1,500,000l.or 1,600,000l.of taxes.There is nothing material more to say. There has been a fine tripotage among the higher females about this Irish ball. The Duchess of Richmond was first applied to to be at the head, and the Duke of York was patron. All the present ladies were of her list, and had agreed to be patronesses, when lo and behold! Lady Conyngham, not having been sent to by the Duchess of Richmond, took offence, and set up a new list, placing the King at the head, whom she commanded to go, and all these ladies turned tack directly, abandoned the Duchess, and are now of the new Government—a pretty semblance of what might occur in the male political tribe.Ever most faithfully yours,W. H. F.
House of Commons, Five o'clock.
My dear Duke,
You can have no idea of the great impression which has been made on the public mind by these two last divisions. It has given courage and unity to our people at the same time, and I trust will enable us to stem the tide which has been setting against us for the latter weeks. The great question that still hangs upon us is the annuity transaction. The South Sea don't take it; the Bank are negotiating but disinclined; and from what I hear from good quarters, it will end in its being done by the Government, and though not actually from the Sinking Fund, still with the means of applying the Sinking Fund in case of failure. The whole project is of Vansittart, and therefore to be feared, but I hope ultimately we shall get over it, and satisfy the country gentlemen by taking off 1,500,000l.or 1,600,000l.of taxes.
There is nothing material more to say. There has been a fine tripotage among the higher females about this Irish ball. The Duchess of Richmond was first applied to to be at the head, and the Duke of York was patron. All the present ladies were of her list, and had agreed to be patronesses, when lo and behold! Lady Conyngham, not having been sent to by the Duchess of Richmond, took offence, and set up a new list, placing the King at the head, whom she commanded to go, and all these ladies turned tack directly, abandoned the Duchess, and are now of the new Government—a pretty semblance of what might occur in the male political tribe.
Ever most faithfully yours,
W. H. F.
The state of Ireland—between famine and revolution—became every day more alarming, and the influence of the Marquis Wellesley for good, appeared more problematical. At this time the Ministers were desirous that the King should pay a visit to another portion of his dominions, where a welcome awaited him not less genuine than that which had given so great a zest to his visit to Ireland; but, as will presently be seen, they had some difficulty in getting his Majesty to enter into their views.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
House of Commons' Committee Room, Thursday morning.My dear B——,I explained to Sir Edward East the other day, how the case stood with respect to his claim to be admitted to the Privy Council. There have been two instances which have occurred of his predecessors being so appointed. Upon Sir John Anstruther's return during Lord Grenville's administration, you must, I am sure, remember that the greatest inconvenience had arisen from the secession of Sir William Grant, and I believe Sir William Scott, from the Privy Council, and that there were no lawyers to attend the hearing of appeals. To supply this want, and with no reference whatever to his having been Chief Justice of Calcutta, Anstruther was sworn in. Sir H. Russell returned in 1813, and three years afterwards was made a Privy Councillor for the same purpose. It therefore seems to me, that whether it be or be not thought desirable that East should hereafter receive the same mark of favour, when legal members may be wanted at that Board, it is at all events objectionable to give it at the present moment, which would establish an absoluterightfor all future Chief Justices against whom there had been no particular charge, to claim it immediately on their return. With this explanation he appeared perfectly satisfied, and desired that it might be understood to be his wish that it should not be pressed if there was any objection to it.I send you the Irish Constables' Bill, the alterations in which have, I believe, satisfied almost all the Irishmen.Newport went out of town yesterday. I do not myself believe in the existence of any intrigue for keeping Canning in this country. If I knew of any, I should be much disposed to join in itopenly. Why Westmoreland should not make room for Lord Melville, who might continue to hold the sceptre of Scotland, and so leave the Admiralty to Canning, I cannot conceive. I think as ill of the latter as the K—— or you can, but it seems to me to be so much his interest to do his best, and that the gulf between him and the Reformers is so impassable, that it would be far better to admit him, and to take the benefit of service in the House of Commons, which no other man can render.Having been bored till five this morning in the House, I can write no more. Richard Wellesley, who is upon the Committee, tells me that his accounts of Lord Wellesley are very good, and that he isquite well.
House of Commons' Committee Room, Thursday morning.
My dear B——,
I explained to Sir Edward East the other day, how the case stood with respect to his claim to be admitted to the Privy Council. There have been two instances which have occurred of his predecessors being so appointed. Upon Sir John Anstruther's return during Lord Grenville's administration, you must, I am sure, remember that the greatest inconvenience had arisen from the secession of Sir William Grant, and I believe Sir William Scott, from the Privy Council, and that there were no lawyers to attend the hearing of appeals. To supply this want, and with no reference whatever to his having been Chief Justice of Calcutta, Anstruther was sworn in. Sir H. Russell returned in 1813, and three years afterwards was made a Privy Councillor for the same purpose. It therefore seems to me, that whether it be or be not thought desirable that East should hereafter receive the same mark of favour, when legal members may be wanted at that Board, it is at all events objectionable to give it at the present moment, which would establish an absoluterightfor all future Chief Justices against whom there had been no particular charge, to claim it immediately on their return. With this explanation he appeared perfectly satisfied, and desired that it might be understood to be his wish that it should not be pressed if there was any objection to it.
I send you the Irish Constables' Bill, the alterations in which have, I believe, satisfied almost all the Irishmen.
Newport went out of town yesterday. I do not myself believe in the existence of any intrigue for keeping Canning in this country. If I knew of any, I should be much disposed to join in itopenly. Why Westmoreland should not make room for Lord Melville, who might continue to hold the sceptre of Scotland, and so leave the Admiralty to Canning, I cannot conceive. I think as ill of the latter as the K—— or you can, but it seems to me to be so much his interest to do his best, and that the gulf between him and the Reformers is so impassable, that it would be far better to admit him, and to take the benefit of service in the House of Commons, which no other man can render.
Having been bored till five this morning in the House, I can write no more. Richard Wellesley, who is upon the Committee, tells me that his accounts of Lord Wellesley are very good, and that he isquite well.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, July 5, 1822.My dear B——,You will perhaps be surprised at not having heard from me respecting the late arrests in Ireland, but the truth is, that his Excellency is too discreet to communicate by his despatches more intelligence than appears in the Dublin newspapers, except that the evidence against these persons is so strong, that he is confident of convicting several of them. In due time he promises to send us the examinations which have been taken, and on which the men were apprehended. This, I suppose, will not be till after he has tried them.We get on, as you will see, at a snail's pace; still I flatter myself I see many symptoms of the session drawing to a conclusion. After next week, we shall have no Irish members left, and most of the English will also have left town.The King now again proposes going to Scotland. The visits are to be to the Duke of Athol, Duke of Montrose, Lord Mansfield, and Lord Hopetoun; perhaps Lord Breadalbane, but not to Gordon Castle or Inverary—the first on account of distance, the latter of the Duke's absence.He has been extremely reasonable in agreeing to the postponement of a Bill enabling him to make a will, and to the alteration of one for regulating the Duchy of Cornwall, though he had got somewhat like a promise before Christmas that they should be passed in this session.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.
Whitehall, July 5, 1822.
My dear B——,
You will perhaps be surprised at not having heard from me respecting the late arrests in Ireland, but the truth is, that his Excellency is too discreet to communicate by his despatches more intelligence than appears in the Dublin newspapers, except that the evidence against these persons is so strong, that he is confident of convicting several of them. In due time he promises to send us the examinations which have been taken, and on which the men were apprehended. This, I suppose, will not be till after he has tried them.
We get on, as you will see, at a snail's pace; still I flatter myself I see many symptoms of the session drawing to a conclusion. After next week, we shall have no Irish members left, and most of the English will also have left town.
The King now again proposes going to Scotland. The visits are to be to the Duke of Athol, Duke of Montrose, Lord Mansfield, and Lord Hopetoun; perhaps Lord Breadalbane, but not to Gordon Castle or Inverary—the first on account of distance, the latter of the Duke's absence.
He has been extremely reasonable in agreeing to the postponement of a Bill enabling him to make a will, and to the alteration of one for regulating the Duchy of Cornwall, though he had got somewhat like a promise before Christmas that they should be passed in this session.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.
July 8, 1822.My dear B——,I had an audience to-day on some business of no importance, but was very graciously received. He talked to me some time about Canning, whom he abused extremely for falsehood and treachery, and expressed his opinion that he was now engaged in some intrigue or another.The expectation of the Chancellor's retiring seems to be very general, in consequence of the undisguised irritation which he has expressed on the decision of the Marriage Bill. There certainly never has been so strong an instance of revolt among those who for so many years were the humblest of slaves.Proxies, as you will see, were not called for. Yours was entered to Lord Wemyss, who expressed himself much flattered at holding it. I should have given it to Lord Cassilis, but that he was doubtful as to his power of attending.Ever affectionately yours,C. W. W.
July 8, 1822.
My dear B——,
I had an audience to-day on some business of no importance, but was very graciously received. He talked to me some time about Canning, whom he abused extremely for falsehood and treachery, and expressed his opinion that he was now engaged in some intrigue or another.
The expectation of the Chancellor's retiring seems to be very general, in consequence of the undisguised irritation which he has expressed on the decision of the Marriage Bill. There certainly never has been so strong an instance of revolt among those who for so many years were the humblest of slaves.
Proxies, as you will see, were not called for. Yours was entered to Lord Wemyss, who expressed himself much flattered at holding it. I should have given it to Lord Cassilis, but that he was doubtful as to his power of attending.
Ever affectionately yours,
C. W. W.
THE RIGHT HON. THOMAS GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.