Part 12 (1/2)
RIGHT HON. THOMAS GRENVILLE TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
Dropmore, Feb. 1, 1821.
MY DEAR LORD B----,
The two brothers here are quite astounded at the importance which you and Charles attach to Lord Castlereagh's attack upon the Government of 1806-7, and still more at the influence which both of you seem disposed to give to it in your conduct on the impending motions in Parliament. In the first place, it is to be observed that it is not fair dealing to expect Castlereagh to forbear from attacking Lord Grey, Lord Lansdowne, and Mr. Tierney, on their hostility to the Queen fourteen years ago, because he cannot do so without including Lord Grenville, as well as Lord Spencer and Lord Erskine, as members of that Government. I think Lord C---- fully ent.i.tled to reproach that inconsistency of conduct to Lord Grey and his colleagues--an inconsistency which in no degree applies to Lord Grenville; but even if it did, surely Lord C---- is not to be deprived of his legitimate warfare upon those to whom he is opposed, because Lord Grenville was in those days politically connected with them. But even supposing that you had reason in this respect to complain of Lord C---- (which I utterly deny), still it would be a most unjustifiable, and unbecoming, and culpable course, to suffer any such personal considerations to influence your conduct upon the great public questions which are impending. Those questions are to decide whether the Opposition is to be suffered, from its base alliance with the Radicals and with the Q----, to take violent possession of the Government, in order to overturn the whole system of our const.i.tution; to bring in annual or triennial Parliaments; to do little short of introducing universal suffrage; to disband the army, which now holds the Radicals in check; and, very probably, to let loose Bonaparte, under pretence of mitigating his confinement. These are some of the first fruits of what is to be expected from Lord Tavistock's motion, if, by its success, it removes the present Government; and can you look at any part of this picture, and yet suffer any personal considerations to weigh for one moment in your mind, while such superior considerations are at stake? I could have added much upon the disgrace you would throw on Lord Grenville, if he could be suspected, as he would, of being a party to so much personal irritation in questions of the very vital existence of the const.i.tution of the country. But he writes himself.
The next letter commences with a reference to the judgment pa.s.sed by Judge Bailey on that popular leader, Sir Francis Burdett. It was merely a fine of 2000, and imprisonment for three months in the King's Bench:--
MR. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, Feb. 10, 1821.
I agree with you in considering the sentence on Burdett--a sentence so unexpected as to call for the plaudits of all the Radicals who surrounded the Court, and the congratulations of his friends--as most calamitous; and, unfortunately, it is not the first instance in which the Court of King's Bench, or rather the present judges who preside in it, have shown that they are not proof against popular clamour and the apprehension of personal danger. On the reduction of the army, I am by no means so sure that I agree with you. I have not the means of estimating the exact quantum of troops which may be requisite for preserving the internal tranquillity of the country, but am inclined to believe that the salutary operation of the Bills of 1819, and the increase which has taken place in the Yeomanry, do afford a reasonable expectation that a less number of regulars will now be sufficient than were before required--and unless I was quite satisfied to the contrary, I am not prepared to complain of any measure which tends to alleviate the financial pressure.
It is quite true that there are symptoms of some understanding between Castlereagh and Peel, though the speech of the latter plainly stated his disapprobation on several points of the conduct of Government. The most decisive is his abandonment of Pitt's old Hill Fort, which he had occupied, and returning to his former position in the rear of the Treasury Bench.
The debate last night was much more decidedly in favour of Government than either of the former--at least, so it appeared to me; but perhaps I may be prejudiced, from having taken a part in it. Wilberforce made a remarkably feeble, vacillating speech, and at last turning the scale in favour of the motion by the make-weight of popular opinion, which he allowed to be formed on false and mistaken principles. Lamb spoke most strongly against the motion, but concluded by voting in its favour, because the question had so much disturbed the country, that the true honour would belong to the party which first conceded it. Acland's was one of the most impressive and efficient speeches I ever heard. And on this state of the debate, Castlereagh most wisely, and to the great satisfaction of the House, allowed us to go to a division at a quarter before one, instead of keeping us till six or seven, which would have been the inevitable consequence of his speaking. To our great amus.e.m.e.nt, Creevey, Fergusson, Wilson, Lambton, and Sefton were shut out, and afterwards received the inquiries of their friends whether it was not from scruples of conscience, and being unable to make up their minds, that they had abstained from voting.
The party is certainly unlucky; for on a preceding night, Lord Carhampton and Luke White paired off and went comfortably to bed, without finding out that they were on the same side. We now, I trust, are rid of the Queen's business, though I still fear we must have one night on the Milan Commission; but n.o.body has yet given notice of a motion on the subject.
I was rather surprised on Monday night to find Ministers so weak as to be totally unable to risk a division on Davie Gilbert's proposal of throwing Grampound into the Hundreds, and that afterwards, when joined by us and by several members from the Opposition, they were beaten two to one; much, I think, owing to Ward's speech. I have now, I think, sent you gossip enough for one day.
Ever yours,
C. W. W.
Have you heard that a match is declared between Lord Dartmouth and Lady Frances Talbot? To see them together will be somewhat like Lord Bulkeley and Lord Abingdon at the Encoenia.
One of the princ.i.p.al subjects of political interest was the Catholic question, brought forward in the House of Commons on the 2nd of March by Mr. Plunket, in a Committee of the whole House; and a Bill for the Emanc.i.p.ation of the Catholics was introduced by him on the 7th of the same month, the second reading of which was debated on the 16th, and carried by a majority of 11.
LORD GRENVILLE TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
Hanover Place, March 5, 1821.
It is extremely difficult, I believe, even for those most intimately acquainted with the present composition of the House of Commons, to antic.i.p.ate the final result of the Catholic question.
Many things that one hears would lead one to be very sanguine in one's hopes; but then, the difficulties are so great of steering between groundless fears on one side and groundless jealousies on the other, and the means are so great which are possessed by the enemies of conciliation on both sides, that every step taken in the business is surrounded with danger of failure.
Plunket talks of dividing the measure into two Bills, if he can get Castlereagh to consent to it--one of concession, the other of security; a most wise project, if it can be accomplished. His exertions have been beyond all praise, and the tone of moderation which he has given to the discussion must do great good, whatever be the result.
I am sorry there was a necessity for giving so much time; but I trust, after the second reading, it will proceed, if at all, with better expedition.
In the House of Lords, the Chancellor and the Bishops will certainly persevere in their resistance; but if there really is that change of course on this subject in higher quarters, which common prudence so loudly calls for, I should not at all fear their opposition.
All will depend on that. But indeed I do not see why Liverpool himself should (on the grounds on which he has always argued the question) be debarred from taking the wiser resolution to acquiesce in such a measure if it comes up from the House of Commons, rather than to set the House of Lords singly to stand in the breach against the claims and wishes of five-sixths of the population of Ireland.
Whether he will be clear-sighted enough to see this course, which I think lies plain before him, or whether he has stoutness enough to adopt it, I know not; but sure I am of what he _ought_ to do.