Memoirs of the Court of George IV. 1820-1830 Part 37

The debate took a turn last night we had not at all antic.i.p.ated.

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 circ.u.mstances 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 embarra.s.sment 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 circ.u.mstances 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 words _spoken in Parliament_, and not for general political conduct. If you prosecute, the right course is certainly that of _information_ in the King's Bench; for it would be most unseemly to allege that your character has really been _endamaged_ by 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 Ca.s.silis 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 pa.s.s with tolerable goodwill in my own _natale 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 d.u.c.h.ess is well, and your Grace, I am, my dear Lord Duke, with Lady B----'s joint best remembrances,