Memoirs of the Court of George IV. 1820-1830 Part 33

W. H. F.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

India Board, March 30, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I had an audience on Thursday after the Council, and was very graciously received, with very particular and really kind inquiries about your health.

You know that my bile is not easily stirred, nor am I, for a Welshman, particularly irritable on anything connected with politics; but really in the course of twenty-five years'

parliamentary life, I do not believe I have ever felt so much as on Lord King's coa.r.s.e and personal attack on Henry. If he chose to question the propriety of the Swiss mission, it was perhaps bad taste in him, but after all fair political game; but to speak of one so nearly connected with him, and whom he had affected always to maintain intimacy with, as a person wholly unknown, to rake into his diplomatic life, and by implication accuse him of overstating his losses in his claim for compensation fifteen years ago, shows such a total absence of all feeling that I cannot trust myself ever again to exchange a word with him.

On public affairs I have little new to say. We tide on and shall do neither good nor evil without being compelled to it.

Ever most affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

CHAPTER VIII.

[1822.]

SIR WILLIAM KNIGHTON. MR. CANNING BRINGS FORWARD THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

OPINIONS RESPECTING CATHOLIC RELIEF. STATE OF THE KING'S HEALTH.

POLITICAL MEETING TO CONSIDER A NEW CATHOLIC MEASURE. MARQUIS WELLESLEY AT THE PHOENIX PARK. COMPLAINTS OF HIS INATTENTION TO HIS DUTIES AS LORD-LIEUTENANT. SPEECH OF DR. PHILLIMORE ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.

MOTION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. HENRY W. WYNN. CONDUCT OF MR. ROBERT PEEL. LIBELS. ANTI-CATHOLICISM IN WALES. BALL FOR THE RELIEF OF THE IRISH. PROJECTED VISIT OF THE KING TO SCOTLAND.

CHAPTER VIII.

The statement hazarded in the next letter, of Sir W. Knighton's literary incapacity, is, we believe, unfounded. The memoir of this gentleman, edited by his widow, affords ample evidence to the contrary, and he enjoyed a large share of the King's confidence at this date, and subsequently. Lord King's motion for a further reduction of the Civil List, animadverted on in the same communication, was made on the 26th of March, and Mr. Canning's notice of motion for the admission of the Catholic Peers into the Imperial Legislature was given on the 29th; the motion was brought forward on the following day, and carried by a majority of five; on May the 10th, the second reading was carried by an increased majority of fourteen. The interest taken by the Duke of Buckingham in the question may be seen in some of the following letters:--

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Board of Control, April 1, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

Depend upon it there must be some mistake or fumble about your application for the _entree_. The fact is, there is no distinct person at present to whom the reference is had at Brighton, and I have heard that the King complains bitterly of the inability of Knighton, who is quite incapable of writing a letter; whether this is true or not I cannot absolutely say, but I believe it from the quarter it came; it seems impossible that the King should have received the letter, or it must have escaped his memory on Thursday when Wynn was with him, otherwise he would have made some observation to him upon it. But pray don't hurry any further step: I will desire Mrs. F. to mention the thing to the d.u.c.h.ess and see what is said upon it; I doubt if she is in correspondence with the King.

I did not mention all the jobs for Bloomfield; he is to have a Governorship of Fort Charles, which Lord Stewart gives up to him, and the promise of a foreign mission, in addition to what I before enumerated to you. Lord King's conduct is worse than your brother's, who was not at the moment aware of "his honourable friend's" intention, and really does not know the details of your father's conduct as teller. I find from Charles W---- that Lord Grenville is equally outrageous with Lord King. It is evident that the Mountain are moving heaven and earth to lower you and your friends, but it will not do. I dread all the discussions arising from the Catholic question; Canning consulted no one, and I really believe not a soul was aware of his intention previous to his giving the notice. It will place Plunket in a very awkward predicament, for it must bring on the argument on the general question; you have no reason, however, as far as I can understand it, to complain of a want of communication, for it was Canning's _move_, and his alone. James Stanhope told me this morning he was coming into Parliament immediately; I think he said it was Houldsworth's seat, but am not quite sure. The Agricultural Report is to be made to-day, and Lord Londonderry gives notice for a motion upon it, I suppose to bring in a Bill after the holidays. We shall get through the Miscellaneous Estimates to-day, and shall have advanced altogether most extremely in Parliamentary business, much beyond the usual proceedings, so as to secure the House being up in time, provided no unforeseen events occur.

Ever most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

April 3, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

If I felt that any one vote was likely to be lost to the general Catholic question in the event of the success of Canning's motion, I should be very much disposed to agree in your view of the impolicy of agitating it. But if there be a reasonable probability (as we have been told) that there are those who, adverse to a measure of general concession, would accede to this, I should antic.i.p.ate a directly opposite result to what you expect. Supposing the Bill to be carried, or even to meet with an increased support in the House of Lords, upon neither of which points am I myself very sanguine, it could not fail to be a stepping-stone to further success. Independent of the immediate gain of six votes when they are most wanted, there are many who, having once voted for a motion of concession, though not intending to proceed further, would feel themselves drawn in, and perceive that they cannot maintain that if it be safe for a Roman Catholic to exercise the functions of the Peerage, he must necessarily overturn the Const.i.tution if elected to the House of Commons or appointed a justice of the peace. Our adversaries are perfectly right when they say that no breach can be made in the present system without necessarily entailing the fall of the whole of it.

I have, however, already told you that in my own opinion, this is so generally felt that there will be scarcely any difference in the division upon the particular and the general question. That it will be thought, as it is in fact, merely a new road to attain the same object. At the same time it is perfectly true, that by this means we get rid, or rather postpone, many of the difficult details which we have to encounter; and that the case of the Peers, who are deprived of a vested interest which they possessed without the slightest inconvenience to the public, long after the other Catholics were disabled from exercising their civil functions, is infinitely the strongest which exists.

Altogether, though the motion is brought forward not only without consultation, but even without the previous knowledge of most of the friends of the Catholics, still, my impression of its justice is such that even if I had a much stronger opinion of its impolicy than I had, I would earnestly support it; and I cannot but feel the utmost anxiety that under the particular circ.u.mstances in which you stand, the line which Lord C---- has taken upon the subject, and the disposition which exists to represent your conduct in the most unfavourable light, that you would reconsider the matter before you resolve to separate yourself from the rest of those who have so long advocated this measure. Upon questions of _right_ and _wrong_ every man must judge for himself, but on those of policy and expediency it seems to me that the opinion of the great body and the most eminent of those who contend for the same object ought to prevail.

I have just heard that Plunket has returned, and is desirous to see me. If I can have any conversation with him before the post goes out I will write again, if not, to-morrow. I hear that he has no apprehension of any jealousy on the part of the Irish of the claims of the Peers being brought forward separately. He is extremely distressed between the strong wish of Lord Londonderry to keep back, and of the Opposition to force forward the question.

My own opinion is, as I have already told you, that the conversation which pa.s.sed on Friday in the House when reported in Ireland will produce so strong a feeling in favour of the latter course that he cannot resist it.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Board of Control, April 4, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

I dined yesterday at the Duke of Gloucester's, and, sitting by the d.u.c.h.ess, I had an opportunity of talking to her, and find she has no correspondence at all with the King, and is evidently not in communication with him but when he comes to town; and as I knew she tells every thing on earth to the Duke, and that he gossips again to his friends in Opposition, I thought it better not to say another word on the subject of your application to the King.

I am quite satisfied of the proper way of recurring to the subject, which is that Wynn should mention it to Lord Liverpool as a private hint, and it would be immediately settled; for be a.s.sured the King does not object, but that it is owing to some mistake, or loss of letter, and requiring an explanation--through Wynn would be much the easiest mode, and not make it of too much importance; for I think you should consider the thing as a matter almost of course, and not place more importance upon it than that which of course belongs to the incivility of not answering your letter, and this really I cannot but think is unintentional.

Lady J---- is come back from Paris, abusing the K---- most violently, and regretting she ever was such an idiot as to suffer her boys to go to the Coronation. In short, there is nothing she does not say against him--and what do you think for? Because he has conferred the Dukedom of Buckingham on you, when Lord J---- was the proper representative of the t.i.tle. This is very good, but I am not sorry the King should find these Opposition ladies not quite so disposed towards him.

Plunket still undecided as to his motion, which, for my own part, I hope he will not bring on, for be a.s.sured neither his nor Canning's has the chance of succeeding in the House of Lords, and the Lansdownes are only urging it because they see, or flatter themselves they see, the prospect of discussion thereby in the Cabinet.

The Report, as was expected, from the Agricultural Committee, is a miserable performance, concocted by Bankes, and affording no one benefit of any sort or kind, saving this, which in my opinion is valuable--an acknowledgment that Parliament can do nothing for the relief of the farmer.

I think Lord King looks foolish and awkward, as well he ought. His conduct is universally blamed.

Ever, my dear Duke,

Most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.