Chapter XX: Appendix: B

THE PRINCE REGENT’S VIEWS ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION

(See p. 113)

(_Account of a conversation between Lord Wellesley and Lord Holland on January 14, 1828._)

I had a conversation with Lord Wellesley. In the course of it, after discussing many topics with his usual vivacity and ability, he was led to speak of the King’s (George IV.) opinions on the Catholic question. He expressed not only regret but surprise at his recently avowed hostility to any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. He maintained that such language and opinion were in direct contradiction to declarations formerly made, and at variance with the principles he had repeatedly and _solemnly_ professed to him. In support of this assertion he alleged the following facts.

When he was Secretary of State in 1811 or 1812, and Lord Fitzwilliam had given notice of a motion on the state of Ireland, he concurred with his colleagues on the propriety of resisting the motion, but thought it incumbent on him in doing so to disclaim all opposition to the measure generally called “Catholic Emancipation,” and even to avow that he was favourably disposed to a removal of the remaining disabilities. Conceiving, however, that it would not become him to express an opinion so much at variance with those professed by his colleagues, without apprising the Prince Regent of his intentions, he waited on His Royal Highness, and stated at length his view of the obligation imposed upon him of avowing his own sentiments on that important question. He even explained at some length the reasons on which they were grounded, and the view he had taken of the whole subject. The Prince Regent distinctly, and even earnestly, approved of his intention; first, as he said, because it was right for him to deliver his sentiments on such a subject, and secondly, because he, the Prince Regent, _concurred in the opinion he intended to express_.

I interrupted Lord Wellesley, to ask him if he was confident that he had not confounded an approbation of the manliness of expressing his opinion with an approbation of the opinion intended to be so expressed. “Certainly not,” was his Lordship’s reply; “the expression was distinct—‘_he concurred in my opinion_.’ And he did not stop there; he called in Lord Liverpool and Mr. Perceval, and repeated to them the substance of my communication and his approbation, saying that I did right to state my opinion without reserve, for he thought I was called upon to do so, and that, moreover, in that opinion he entirely concurred.”

Lord Wellesley then proceeded to relate a much stranger circumstance. When, after Lord Wellesley’s retirement from office, Lord Donoughmore moved to refer the Catholic petitions to a Committee, Lord Wellesley had again a communication from the Prince Regent. I forget if it was in writing or by a message, but it was not merely an approbation of his avowing his opinions, and of the opinions he intended to avow, but a request, in the shape of a command, to express these opinions, and to state to the House and the country at large that he was expressing those of the Prince Regent as well as his own, and _that he had His Royal commands to inform the House that he, the Regent, concurred in all he said on the subject_. “These commands,” added Lord Wellesley, “I took upon me, as I have frequently observed to His Majesty since, _most implicitly to disobey_”: and he then appealed to me on the propriety of his own conduct in doing so, on the obvious objections in a constitutional point of view there would have been in such a declaration, and on the injurious effects it must have had (considering all that has since occurred) on the temper of the people of Ireland and His Majesty’s personal character and honour.

He had, he said, subsequent to that period remarked some ill-humour to the Catholics and their supporters, some wavering and tergiversation, and some inconsistency in the language of his Royal Master on such topics, but never any decided avowal of hostility to the measure on principle; and he must, he added, moreover, remark that His Majesty’s manner, language, and conduct when in Ireland was, even by the admission of Lord Sidmouth and others opposed to the Catholic claims, most injudicious and injurious to his honour and his Government, if he was really determined to resist on principle and in all circumstances any further concession to his Roman Catholic subjects. He assured me that the Irish Roman Catholics would not yet believe he had deserted them, that the postponement of the measure was generally attributed by them to some faction or intrigue in Court or in Parliament, and not to any hostility in the King’s mind; that he was, in truth, still popular with that class of his subjects, from a persuasion that he was secretly friendly to their admission, and that, on the other hand, he was far from enjoying the confidence of their enemies, and was, in truth, an object of suspicion, if not of enmity, with all the high Orange party and self-constituted Protestant ascendancy in Ireland.

This distinct evidence of the Prince Regent’s avowed support of the Catholic claims, I have thought it right to record, upon the almost irrefragable authority from which I received it. My testimony would certainly lead to a directly opposite conclusion, _viz._, that he was often willing to leave an impression on those with whom he conversed that he was friendly to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, but that he was studiously cautious of saying in distinct terms that he deemed that measure either practicable or expedient. The Duke of Orleans (Louis Philippe) told me that in the year 1814 or 1815, I forget which, he distinctly avowed his hostility to all concession whatever; and explained the nature of his repugnance to it and of his scruples, by saying that if Catholics could be lawfully admitted to political power they could not be lawfully excluded from the Crown, and the title of his family would in that case cease to be legitimate. This remark, however, was made at a period and in a conversation where it was evidently the object of the English Prince to impress on the Duke of Orleans the duty of implicit obedience to what he considered the “legitimate” heir to the Bourbon throne, and to imply that it was religious, not political, considerations which had justified the English in departing from the regular line of succession.