Chapter XXI: Appendix: C

LORD HOLLAND TO LORD GREY

(See p. 293)

(_Containing his report of a conversation with Sir John Leach._)

_12th June, 1820._

DEAR GREY,

I am hoarse, lame, gouty, nervous, and annoyed, but must write you a letter—not about my motion. I daresay that, at your distance, you disapprove it; but I am right, and were you here you would think so. However, I leave that to be explained by my speech, if I can deliver it, by time, and by conversation, if I am ever to get any of that commodity with you again. But there is a business more embarrassing. I shall not mention names by letter; you will probably guess, and perhaps your judgment on things will not be less impartial and good if you do not.

Since Saturday’s post I have had two conversations not of my seeking. I was told Ministers expected, possibly meant, to be beaten to-night in the House of Commons on the question of adjournment, and then meant to resign to-morrow, leaving the King at issue with his Commons and without a Government. An answer was to be made last night by Liverpool to a remonstrance sent to him by the King against Canning’s speech, which would, no doubt, maintain Canning stoutly (it did so), and thereby furnish an opportunity for dismissing the whole Ministry before their defeat in the Commons. My informant stated _himself_ to be at a loss what to advise, because it depended on the practicability of forming a new Ministry. He therefore consulted me, _as his friend_, what he ought to do for his own honour and character and for the King’s service; his notion, he added, had been to advise the King to dismiss the present men directly (that was last night), to fetter any new Government he should appoint with _no_ conditions whatever, and to send for me, Lansdowne and _Grenville!_ to-day. In the course of our conversation when your name occurred, he always dwelt on the great pressure of time, and said with concern that you were in Northumberland.

The substance of what I said was that while an ostensible Ministry was in existence it was impossible for me, with any regard to my own character, feelings, or principles, to convey through him or any one else any opinion on the propriety or the impropriety of dismissing that Ministry; on the way in which such dismissal could be accomplished; or, indeed, on the practicability of forming any other Government. I was, therefore, compelled to decline saying one word on those topics or giving him any advice how to act.

I told him, however, as my private friend, what was, and long had been, my situation in political connection. From my long experience of your public conduct, confidence in your abilities, and private affection and friendship for you, I had transferred to you that political attachment I had felt for my uncle when alive. There might be, from there being less disparity in years and possibly in understanding between us, some slight difference in the degree, but none in the nature, of that political attachment. That, unless so improbable an event as a difference between us on some great question affecting the general policy of the country should ever occur, I not only could never be of any service to the King in office _without_ you, but could only be of service to him by being brought there _by and under_ you. The King, I supposed, must infer this from his knowledge of my general party principles. I was sure I could not be five minutes in his closet on matters connected with the formation of a Ministry, without his knowing it distinctly. Without reference, therefore, to present circumstances, I showed that sending for me would be quite idle, unless the intention were not only to admit you as a Minister, but to consult and to entrust you in the task of forming one; and if that were the intention, the direct method, always the best, was perhaps more emphatically so, because something like personal estrangement had either subsisted or been rumoured to subsist between you and the King. As a general, though not invariable, rule, and always without reference to the immediate subject of our interview, I hinted that a King of England did best to place his confidence in some one man or, at least, some one party, and to leave to that person’s or that party’s discretion all union and coalition with others. I did not like to object to a man I so sincerely respect as Grenville, but I contrived in the course of conversation carelessly to observe that all political connection with him had dropped.

I then bantered my friend on the little comparative importance he attached to [the] House of Commons, and to various great measures on which men entrusted with power must make up their minds. He called the House of Commons _wild_, and seemed surprised when I told him that if he thought them _wild_ he would think the public, if he knew their feelings on the same subject, quite _frantic_. He seemed to apprehend that, in spite of the public clamour and Parliamentary unwillingness to do much, the King would not be satisfied with a separation or even a divorce, unless the Queen were deprived of her title and dignity as well as of her relation to him. I could not help saying, “That in that case he was a damned unreasonable fellow.” My friend seemed to imagine there could be no important measure but the Catholic question, from which remark I collected that that point might be conceded. I told him I differed with him extremely there. There were in my mind many measures—popular measures—of more importance to the stability and character of a Ministry and to the country than any squabble between man and wife could be: that as far as I had weight with parties in power I should recommend them to be very inflexible about such measures, and much more so than about men. I purposely avoided marking too distinctly what they were, but observed that [the] more a Government was harassed with such odious and painful subjects as the domestic quarrels of [the] Royal Family, the more prudent and the more incumbent upon them it would be to insist on everything that could benefit or, consistently with safety, gratify the country. I am afraid this part of my conversation did not please, and I was sorry to perceive it did not.

I need not tell you how I felt and do feel your absence. My line is, indeed, clear, whether you are absent or not; but indeed, my dear Grey, it is hardly fair to expect that that of other persons can be so. They cannot take upon themselves to act _for_ you.

It is quite impossible for them to consult you on the emergencies that may arise at such a distance—an endeavour to do so is tantamount to not acting at all.

Yours,

VASSALL HOLLAND.

I hardly know what I have written: I am so harassed with cold and business.

Since I wrote, Lansdowne and Tierney have been here: both have had similar communications through different channels, and Lord Buckingham, I am told, has taken one of the same kind down to Dropmore. The only difference is that Lansdowne’s and Tierney’s informants (both political friends of ours) said they were authorised by [the] King to communicate and consult: my friend only asked me my advice for the regulation of his own conduct. Tierney said nothing could be done in [the] House of Commons, _and_ the King’s cause there was lost; and he suggested, not to dismiss the Ministry, but to leave them to entangle themselves and disgrace themselves more. Lansdowne is most properly afraid of putting ourselves at all at the mercy of the Court in case of a change, but seems to think that union with some of the present men, Liverpool especially, would secure you more effectually against that evil than I think it would; but I cannot enter into all the various views and speculations and shades of opinion. Lansdowne constantly and naturally urges your coming up.

Yours,

VASSALL HOLLAND.

I should add, in case Tierney forgets it, that his informant said distinctly the King had no personal objection to your being, not only a Minister, but first Minister, and his informant, I am sure, would wish to see you so.