Chapter C: J. Fox (9)

Your letter, which mentions one written some time since, came
yesterday to my hands; and upon the same day came a monthly
account from Coutts, by which I see that, by Welles's neglect,
and by the delay of my stewards, I had unknowingly drawn for the
expenses of my departure beyond my state; but as it is proper
that your wants should be supplied, I have writ to Frogatt, to
order him to let you have some £500 from some money of mine in
his hands; and I will let you have more as soon as I can.

The remainder of your letter gives me, indeed, the most sensible
concern, for it shows me that line broken, which I was still in
hopes was only strained; for this is the only interpretation
which I can put upon that offer, which (from the most honourable
motives) you have made to me; and the only wish which I can now
form, is that you may never reflect for whom, and for what, you
have sacrificed that political and intimate connexion, which
nature had pointed out, and which till this moment I had not
despaired of. One opportunity presented itself in which you
could have done me essential service: I never can regret the
eagerness with which I entreated from you that proof of
affection, because I still feel how much I would have
sacrificed, to have preserved our bond inviolate; that, with
many other prospects, is now gone, and I am to feel that I have
lost that confidence, that good-will and attachment which you
have given to a friendship, which, for obvious reasons, I must
ever regret. I do not speak this in resentment and reproach, my
feelings are far above them, but in sober and earnest grief of
mind. I must remind you that no personal friendship, no party or
political consideration, could have guided the steps which I
took in June last; to which, in terms the most decisive, you
marked your line of separation. The same public principles (for
with no one person in England have I correspondence) have
decided me in the present moment, and in neither path have we
met; and parting upon such a question as that of the present
system (upon which I feel everything as a public man, and as a
private man have the sensations which naturally result from
personal insult), I fear that we have (at least for some time)
little chance of seeing those affections vibrate in unison which
I feel so strongly strained. Once more let me entreat you (for I
am not ashamed to entreat) to reconsider this well. If your new
connexion replaces to you that affectionate interest which from
my childhood I have borne to you; if your line holds out to you
that honourable satisfaction, which I trust you would not have
lost by a cordial union of objects and dispositions with me, I
fear that I speak in vain; but if you give that play to your
reason, to your affection, and to every feeling which Providence
has given, as the cement of the tenderest and most intimate
connexions, remember that in offering to you my heart, I mean to
offer to you everything which the truest love can give you, but
what must and can depend only on the closest union. Weigh this
well, and may every good angel guide your decision. Adieu.

Lord Temple must have been the more distressed by the course his brother had taken on this occasion, from the evidences he received of the sanction of other friends, who were governed in their own conduct by his example. These proofs of attachment and approval, while they afforded the most gratifying testimony to the rectitude of his views, touched him deeply in contrast with the alienation of his brother.

Only a few days before he wrote this letter to Mr. Thomas Grenville, we find Lord Bulkeley addressing him in the following terms, alluding to the communication in which Lord Temple had informed him of his determination to resign. "I had great pleasure," observes the writer, "in receiving your last very kind letter, and in learning from yourself the line you meant to take at a critical conjuncture like the present, when the candidates for honour and principle are so reduced in number, that those who forego great situations to bring them forward again, have every title to confidence and support, and deserve every honest and independent encouragement. You may naturally suppose I have not been without solicitations from the Coalition Government; I have given but one answer, which was that I shall certainly act with you, and more especially as your conduct in resigning gave me, if possible, a greater opinion of and veneration for your character than I could by any means express."

Such testimonies were consolatory in the difficult position in which Lord Temple was placed; but, instead of alleviating the pain he felt at his separation from his brother in public life, they embittered it by the conviction that one whom he loved so sincerely should have adopted a line of action which he in his conscience believed to be erroneous.

It will be observed that in writing to Mr. Thomas Grenville, Lord Temple alludes to a former letter, which evidently had not reached its destination. The circumstance would be unimportant in itself, were there not reason to believe that it formed part of a regular system of _espionnage_ to which the whole of Lord Temple's correspondence was subjected. The establishment of such an inquisition into the letters of so high a functionary as the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland seems incredible, and nothing short of the most decisive proofs of the fact could justify even a suspicion of its existence. But there are passages in these letters which leave no doubt whatever that Lord Temple's correspondence, both private and public, was inspected in London while he yet held office in Ireland, and that the same course continued to be carried on after he returned to England. Nor was the _espionnage_ limited to mere perusal, frequent allusions to miscarriages leading to the inference that his letters were sometimes suppressed altogether.

There are no means of determining with whom this system originated. All that appears to be certain is, that it was practised during the period of the Shelburne Cabinet, and followed up under the Coalition; and that after it had been detected, no secret was made about it, either by Lord Temple or his intimate correspondents.

Writing to Colonel Dundas, Lord Temple says, apparently under the apprehension that his letter would be read by others, "Obvious circumstances will prevent my going into the discussion of details in a post letter." And to a friend in Ireland, he speaks still more explicitly: "As almost every letter," he observes, "received or written by me is opened, it is possible that this may undergo that operation in London; and if so, they will learn the real regard I bear to you." Mr. Cuff, writing to Lord Temple, from Dublin, in the November of this year, declares that he expects nothing less than that his letter will be opened and read. The passage is too remarkable to be omitted.

I should not now trouble your Lordship with a letter, but
that I find to a certainty, that letters to and from your Lordship
are not only opened and read, but many of them are stopped.
If this should happen to get into your Lordship's hands, you
will see, by what I have written on the outside of it, that I am
willing to compromise with those _honourable gentlemen_ who
open and read your letters, and that I have no objections to
their opening and reading, provided they will afterwards forward
them to you.

Your Lordship mentions a letter you wrote to me about three
or four weeks since, relative to the Genevois and their houses.
I have never received a letter from your Lordship since you left
Ireland, except one dated the 20th of July, and your last of the
23rd of October. I had the honour to write to your Lordship
about the 20th or 25th of September, thanking you for your
letter of the 20th of July, and telling you (what I can say with
truth) that I prize it more than all my other possessions upon
earth. I did not know, when I wrote that letter, that it would
be opened and read, else I should have declared my sentiments
more freely; but as I am almost certain that this one will be
opened, I shall be more full.

Know all men, therefore, by these presents, openers of letters,
and others, that I am more attached to your Lordship than to
all the rest of the world; not because you gave me a place of
£400 a year at the Barrack Board, but because I think you
have more sense, honour, and firmness, than all the Viceroys I
have ever seen in Ireland put together.

A month elapsed before Lord Temple answered this letter, unwilling to trust his reply to the post, and waiting all that time for an opportunity to send it by a "safe hand." His explanation of the delay furnishes additional proof of the inquisition to which his correspondence was exposed.

I should long since (he observes) have acknowledged your very
kind letter to me, if I had not delayed it partly with the
inclination of sending you an answer by a safe hand, and partly
from the exceeding anxious state of public business, which has
wholly engrossed my attention. It appears from your state[ment]
of the letters which you have received, that one, written about
the beginning of October, never reached you.

That Lord Temple's letters should have been secretly inspected by a hostile Administration is intelligible, if we can admit such a proceeding to be consistent with the honour of public men or reconcilable with the obligations of the public service; but it is impossible to comprehend upon what ground of expediency or from what motives of jealousy or distrust, so flagrant a breach of confidence was committed towards him by the subordinates (for it is difficult to believe it could have been officially sanctioned by Ministers themselves) of a Cabinet under which he held so responsible a situation as that of the Vice-royalty of Ireland. The fact, nevertheless, admits of no doubt, and throws a strong light on the sinister means which were adopted in those days for the "management" of the executive.

The share which Lord Temple took in public affairs after his return from Ireland, and during the existence of the Coalition, naturally enough made him a special object of suspicion and resentment to the Cabinet. We find him, in his letter to Mr. Cuff, stating that his attention has been wholly engrossed by the anxious state of public business, and the memoirs of the period show in the results how powerfully he contributed to the overthrow of that ministerial combination, which he had denounced as unnatural and infamous. But the details of his services to the King throughout this harassing crisis have never found their way into history; nor is it now possible, from their secret and confidential nature, to trace them in full. The disclosures, however, which may be gleaned from the few letters that passed to and from Lord Temple at this period, sufficiently prove that the King trusted all along to his counsel and support, and acted altogether on his advice. There was so much hazard in committing opinions and suggestions to so unsafe a medium as that of correspondence, that we can look but for scanty revelations in the papers which have been preserved. It appears that Lord Temple conducted his proceedings in reference to the struggle between the King and his Ministers chiefly by means of personal interviews and detached memoranda of his views, intended only to assist the memory in conversation, and torn up as soon as used. Lord Thurlow was sometimes employed by his Majesty as an agent on these occasions, and through him, probably to avert suspicion from the real quarter on which his Majesty relied, the intercourse with Lord Temple and his friends was occasionally carried on.

From the commencement to the close of the brief tenure of the Coalition, his Majesty held aloof from his Ministers; and it was not till the opening of the Session, on the 11th of November, that an opportunity was presented for acting effectively upon his determination to get rid of them as soon as he could. During the interval that had elapsed since the prorogation of Parliament in the preceding July, they prepared their measures; but, from the want of co-operation and confidence on the part of the Sovereign, the precise character of their policy was a matter of speculation outside the Cabinet. His Majesty either did not, or would not, know the course they intended to pursue; and it is evident, from subsequent circumstances, that the plan of operations for relieving him of their presence was kept in suspense, waiting upon events, up to the moment when they brought forward their famous India Bill. The following letter, written a few days before the opening of Parliament, shows how little was known at that moment of the views of Ministers, and enables us to perceive that, although Lord Temple was in frequent communication with the King, he had not yet decided upon the line of conduct to be adopted. The state of affairs implied in the letter is curious enough; exhibiting the Sovereign, on the one side, taking secret counsel of the Opposition, and the Ministry, on the other, coming down to Parliament with measures which they were well aware His Majesty was eagerly watching for a constitutional excuse to thwart and defeat.

LORD TEMPLE TO LORD MORNINGTON.

Stowe, Nov. 6th, 1783.

My dear Lord,

As Stephen Fremantle will deliver this to you, I have not the
same difficulties which attend the writing a post letter. I go
to town to-morrow, in order to settle our winter arrangements.
My first principle will be to throw Ireland out of the book of
opposition, unless I am attacked upon it, which I sincerely hope
may be the case; although I have but little hopes that by any
management in either House, Ministry will be brought to
acknowledge the language which their agents uniformly hold upon
my subject. Their politics are, I own, inexplicable upon
Ireland; they speak the language of high crimination of me, for
the concession (which I call no concession) made in the last
sessions; they affect to talk loudly and strongly upon all
subsequent claims or popular subjects, and to have no fear upon
the event of any of those questions; and yet I know that Lord
Northington is frightened, and has uniformly proposed concession
on every point _to the fullest extent_; this communication I
know directly from the King's mouth, though not to me, but to
another person; consequently, it is for your private ear. It is
possible that Wyndham, the professed friend to Parliamentary
Reform, may have taken his resolution to resign upon that
measure being negatived, which we understand certainly to have
been decided here. But in all modes of turning it, how is it
possible to reconcile a heap of contradictions? I shall see the
King upon particular business (no idea of a change) on Friday;
and if with propriety I can state anything further upon this,
you shall know it. The Portugal business is really all afloat;
nor do Ministry see daylight; and I know, from undoubted
authority, that France, Spain, and Portugal mean to offer their
trade to Ireland upon lower terms, if you will dispense with the
Alien Duty, or, in so many words, with the Navigation Act,
which, _entre nous_, I fear is no longer binding upon you, as we
have partially repealed it in favour of America, and therefore,
under Yelverton's Bill, it is now void. This idea, I know, has
been proposed to some of your Irish factors, and I have reason
to believe that Government know nothing about it. The
information which I gave you upon the subject of the Treaties is
likewise authentic; it is certain that the commercial system
with any of the contracting parties is not advanced nor
advancing: so much then for your commercial code. As to the
ideas of protecting duties, East India trade, and such, &c., as
Ministry affect, and I hope with truth, to hold them cheap; as
to the Absentee Tax, I do not hear what they propose; but from
many circumstances I should not wonder if they gave way; and if
they do, the mortal blow is struck to your landed interest. I
wish you would be so good as to inquire privately what became of
the prosecutions I had ordered against the Kilkenny Rangers for
their riot with Talbot's Fencibles, and against a Mr.
Hetherington, Lieutenant of the Lowtherstown Volunteers near
Inniskillen, for firing with his corps upon a party of the
105th, who came to seize his stills; for I very much suspect
that Yelverton (who was very much averse to them) has smuggled
them all. I rather think that you must see Grattan in
opposition, as I do not see how he can fight under Scott or
Fitzgibbon, who have clearly undertaken the House of Commons. If
so, the restoration of Lord Carlisle's Administration is
singularly perfect in all its parts, except Sheridan, _vice_
Lees, which you will agree with me is not quite enough to
constitute an essential difference. If the Post-Office gives
only one Post-Master you will see Lord Northington completely
puzzled, as I have reason to think that the Duke of Leinster and
old Mr. Ponsonby have both asked for it. What do you suppose is
in contemplation about your Chancellor? I cannot think that Lord
Lifford will continue, and yet his terms (to which the Duke of
Portland had acceded in July, 1782,) are immoderately high,
viz., £2,000 per annum for three lives. When you will recollect
that our late Chancellors, though going to the Woolsack from
high offices and emoluments, received--Lord Camden £1,500 a year
Irish, till a Tellership fell; Lord Bathurst nothing; Lord
Thurlow a reversion of a tellership at £3,000 per annum. Compare
the pretensions and the rewards!

In this kingdom you will see that there is _de quoi s'amuser_ in
Parliament: the Funds lower than in war; £30,000,000 still
unfunded, consequently £1,500,000, at the least, to be raised of
annual taxes, and at least £500,000 or £600,000 additional taxes
to make up the deficiencies. Nothing done in Reform, except the
creation of new offices, and the whole attention of ministers
exclusively turned to the book of Numbers. My brother's fears
were that the Opposition might be petulant. With this bill of
fare, and that which the foreign questions will furnish, I do
not think that we run great risk. Do not answer the detail of
this letter, for it is unsafe; but I wished to take every
opportunity to give you good information, and to assure you of
the affectionate regard with which I am,

My dear Lord,
Ever yours,
N. T.

The East India Bills were introduced by Mr. Fox, on the 18th of November. The extreme and almost unprecedented principle laid down in these Bills, afforded His Majesty and his private advisers the opportunity of resistance they desired. Had the Opposition themselves framed a measure for Ministers, with the express purpose of widening the distance between the Cabinet and the Sovereign, they could not have devised one better adapted to the purpose. The main object of the East India Bills was to withdraw from the Company the entire administration of the civil and commercial affairs of India, and to vest it in a board of commissioners, who should be nominated by Parliament, and rendered perfectly independent of the Crown. This scheme is said to have been devised by Mr. Burke; but even the paternity of Mr. Burke could not mitigate the odium that was heaped upon it by the Pitt and Grenville party. Mr. Pitt described it as a piece of tyranny that broke through every principle of equity and justice, that took away the security of every company in the kingdom, the Bank, the national creditor and the public corporations, and that left unsafe the great Charter itself, the foundation of all our liberties. It was not merely, however, because it struck at the principle of security so far as public companies and chartered rights were concerned, that it incurred the strenuous opposition of the King's friends. A more immediate objection was discovered in the blow it aimed at the royal prerogative. The establishment of a commission for the administration of the affairs of India, without concert with the Crown, and whose members were irremovable by the Sovereign, except upon an address from either House of Parliament, was a bold attempt to reduce and narrow the King's influence, which, in the menacing relations then subsisting between the Ministers and the King, could only be regarded as a declaration of open hostility. Upon this ill-considered measure the royal opposition took its stand. But great difficulties were to be encountered before the favourable opportunity thus afforded by the rashness of Ministers could be turned to account.

The Bills passed triumphantly through the Commons, the second reading being carried by a majority of 217 to 103; and on the 9th of December Mr. Fox, attended by a numerous train of members, presented them at the bar of the House of Lords. Here, then, the final battle was to be fought. Lord Temple protested against the measure as "infamous," and as seizing upon "the most inestimable part of the Constitution--our chartered rights;" and was energetically supported by Thurlow, Richmond, and Camden. But as something more than the ordinary parliamentary resistance was necessary to effect the rejection at once of the plan and its authors, Lord Temple obtained permission to make known the sentiments of His Majesty on the subject, in order to give additional weight and authority to the movements of the Opposition. The proverb which has come down to us from Shakspeare, that the King's name is a tower of strength, was never, perhaps, more effectively illustrated.

According to the version which is given in the accounts hitherto published of these transactions, it was not till the 11th of December, two days after the Bills had been read a first time in the Lords, that His Majesty was apprised of the real character of the measure as it affected his prerogative; and it was then, and not till then, His Majesty determined to resist it. This statement goes to the effect--that on the 11th of December, between the first and second reading, Earl Temple had a conference with the King, in the course of which he fully explained to His Majesty the nature and tendency of a measure which His Majesty had up to that time approved; that he showed His Majesty that he had been "duped" and "deceived," and that His Majesty's indignation at this discovery was excited to such a height as to induce him to authorise the Earl Temple to oppose the Bills in his name. In order to leave no doubt on this point, and to give it all possible force and authenticity, a card was written, setting forth, "That His Majesty allowed Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem stronger and more to the purpose."

This unusual and rather undignified proceeding admits of no other justification than the urgency and exigency of the occasion; and the best thing that can be said of it is, that it answered the end for which it was designed, although the notoriety which was given to it (and without which it would have been of no avail) produced a fierce resolution in the Commons, carried by an immense majority, declaring that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King upon any proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of members. It did influence the votes of members very extensively, nevertheless, several proxies which had been entrusted to Ministers having been withdrawn in consequence of the royal interference.

It would appear from this statement, that up to the 11th of December, His Majesty had approved of the India Bills; and that on that day, for the first time, Lord Temple drew His Majesty's attention to the tendency of the measure. Upon the face of the proceedings themselves, such a version of the transaction is so incredible as to excite surprise at its adoption by contemporary historians. A very little reflection must have discovered the impossibility of His Majesty remaining in ignorance of the spirit, aim, and purport of a scheme which had been under discussion for three weeks in the Commons, and had been sifted, explored, and denounced by Pitt, Jenkinson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Grenville, and others. Nor is it to be believed that, with so strong a motive operating in the minds of His Majesty's personal friends as that which was furnished by the well-known desire of His Majesty to seize upon the first opportunity to make a breach with the Cabinet, Lord Temple and those who acted with him would have suffered His Majesty to continue in the ignorance ascribed to him--assuming, which it is unreasonable to assume, that His Majesty really was ignorant of the scope and design of a ministerial proposal which had called up remonstrances and protests from all parts of the kingdom.

It is scarcely necessary to say that Lord Temple did not wait until the Bills had reached the House of Lords, to submit to the King his opinion of them; and that he had all throughout earnestly impressed upon His Majesty the objectionable spirit of those clauses that infringed the royal prerogative. This was, indeed, the only vulnerable point upon which His Majesty's direct interference could be properly invoked. The difficulty that had hitherto stood in the way was as to the manner in which the interposition of the King's authority could be brought to bear constitutionally on the measure, during its progress through Parliament. Ministers had an ascertained and decisive majority in the Commons, and Lord Temple seems to have felt that it would have been unwise in His Majesty to have interfered at that stage of the proceedings, when his interference was likely to have failed of the desired effect. The last resource was in the Peers. To have implicated the King's name in the opposition to the measure, while it yet was in the hands of the Commons, would have fatally compromised His Majesty's position; and for that excellent reason, Lord Temple reserved the declaration of His Majesty's opinion for that arena where it was most likely to exercise a practical influence. The moment chosen was just before the debate on the principle of the Bills. Had His Majesty been advised to preserve his neutrality pending the discussion in the Lords, the probability was, that the measure would have passed that House, and that he would have been ultimately reduced to the necessity of refusing his assent to it; an extremity from which he was delivered by the prompt and novel course recommended by Lord Temple.

Amongst the Grenville papers there is the rough draught of a memorandum, which reveals to us not only the suggestions upon which the King acted in this emergency, but the no less important fact that the line of action was submitted to His Majesty eight days before the Bills had passed the Commons. It is evident from the tone of this memorandum, that the subject matter of it had previously occupied much anxious consideration, that the determination to resist the Bills in some shape was already adopted, and that nothing remained to be settled but the _modus operandi_. It will be seen, that in this memorandum the difficulties attending the royal interference at different stages of the measure are fully designated, and that the mode of proceeding finally adopted by His Majesty is distinctly pointed out. The opening line, and the note at the foot, are in the hand-writing of Lord Temple; the body of the memorandum is in a different and not very legible hand.

Dec. 1st, 1783.

To begin with stating to His Majesty our sentiments upon the
extent of the Bill, viz.:

We profess to wish to know whether this Bill appear to His
Majesty in this light: a plan to take more than half the royal
power, and by that means disable [the King] for the rest of the
reign. There is nothing else in it which ought to call for this
interposition.

Whether any means can be thought of, short of changing his
Ministers, to avoid this evil.

The refusing the Bill, if it passes the Houses, is a violent
means. The changing his Ministers after the last vote of the
Commons, in a less degree might be liable to the same sort of
construction.

An easier way of changing his Government would be by taking some
opportunity of doing it, when, in the progress of it, it shall
have received more discountenance than hitherto.

This must be expected to happen in the Lords in a greater degree
than can be hoped for in the Commons.

But a sufficient degree of it may not occur in the Lords if
those whose duty to His Majesty would excite them to appear are
not acquainted with his wishes, and that in a manner which would
make it impossible to pretend a doubt of it, in case they were
so disposed.

By these means the discountenance might be hoped to raise
difficulties so high as to throw it [out], and leave His Majesty
at perfect liberty to choose whether he will change them or not.

This is the situation which it is wished His Majesty should find
himself in.

Delivered by Lord Thurlow, Dec. 1st, 1783.
Nugent Temple.

The sequel is matter of history. On the 17th of December, the India Bills were rejected, in the House of Peers, by a majority of 95 to 76. On the 18th, at midnight, a message was transmitted from the King to Lord North and Mr. Fox, commanding them to deliver up their seals of office; and, in order to mark emphatically the royal displeasure, they were desired to send in their seals by the Under-Secretaries, as a personal interview with them would be "disagreeable" to His Majesty. The next day the rest of the Ministry were dismissed, and the letters conveying their dismissal were signed by Lord Temple.

The circumstances under which this sudden change in the councils of the Sovereign took place, produced considerable alarm in the Commons, by whose support alone--in opposition to the feelings of the King, and the voice of the public--the late Ministry had been sustained in office. An apprehension prevailed amongst the members that the new Cabinet would advise a dissolution, and an Address to the King was accordingly passed on the 22nd, praying His Majesty not to adopt that measure; but Mr. Pitt, to whom the responsibility of constructing an Administration had been confided in the meanwhile, entertained no such project, having resolved to trust in the first instance to his strength out of doors; and His Majesty's answer to the address explicitly assured the Commons, accordingly, that he had no intention of exercising his prerogative either to prorogue or dissolve Parliament.

For three days Lord Temple held the Seals, to facilitate Mr. Pitt's negotiations; and shortly afterwards the new Government was announced, with Mr. Pitt at its head, Lord Howe at the Admiralty, Lord Thurlow as Lord Chancellor, and the Marquis of Carmarthen and Lord Sydney in the Foreign and Home Departments. The Duke of Rutland, who for a short time held the office of Lord Privy Seal (in which he was succeeded by Lord Gower), was sent to Ireland to succeed Lord Northington early in the ensuing year.

Up to this time, notwithstanding the signal services he had rendered to the Sovereign throughout a period marked by the most extraordinary contest in our annals between the Crown and a dominant party in the Commons, Lord Temple had waited in vain for that acknowledgment of his conduct in Ireland to which he felt himself entitled. The position of the King during the conflict that had been forced upon him with his Ministers was, doubtless, no less embarrassing than painful; but now that Mr. Pitt had succeeded to office, Lord Temple expected full justice would be done to him. That he did not receive it, however, and that his proud and sensitive temper resented the neglect, will be evident from the following letter, which closes the correspondence for the year.

LORD TEMPLE TO MR. PITT.

Stowe, Dec. 29th, Half-past One.

Dear Sir,

I am sorry that you should have had the trouble of acknowledging
at so late a period a letter which was indeed very interesting
to me, but to which I have not even expected any answer for the
last eight weeks; and I perfectly agree with you, "that it would
be of little use to enter in[to] particulars" respecting the
considerations so immediately affecting my credit, a[nd?]
honour, which we certainly view so differently. If any
communication had been wished for from me upon these points,
upon which it was known by Mr. Grenville and by you that I was
not indifferent, I should have thought it my duty of friendship
to have stated my reasons for being confident that the new Irish
arrangements cannot be useful, upon the same principles as have
been thought (by you) sufficient to bury former distinctions of
party in this country: I have already stated to you my reasons
for considering the recal of Mr. Ponsonby and of his friends to
power and confidence in Ireland as a most dangerous measure, and
as a departure from a system to which His Majesty's Government
was pledged, not only with your approbation, but with your
strong and decided opinion. I have likewise stated the reasons
why I consider such a measure, unaccompanied with any mark to me
of the King's approbation of my conduct, as the strongest
disavowal of my Government in Ireland, and (not to use harsh
expressions) as the most personal offence to me. In that point
of view I know that it has been almost universally considered in
Ireland; because the natural intemperance of those to whom I
feel myself sacrificed has not been controlled by any proof of
the interest which it had been supposed you would have felt
naturally in whatever so nearly concerned me. And with these
impressions, I felt strongly the kindness of my brother, Mr.
Grenville, who endeavoured to calm those feelings, and to
suggest various marks of favour (if you should approve them)
which did not appear to him precluded by any difficulties of
which he was aware.

And by that kindness I was induced to acquiesce in his wish to
be permitted to open to you an idea which I find that Mr.
Grenville and you consider (in part of it) as strongly
objectionable, as hazardous to Government, and as unwise on my
part. As I cannot think of accepting the peerage for my second
son under such circumstances, I have only to express my regrets
that the idea ever has been opened to you. I was never very
particularly attached to it, and certainly feel the full force
of your arguments against it; but I likewise feel as fully that
the arrangements which you have taken, with your eyes open to
the consequences (as far as I am concerned in the question),
leave me without alternative. I need not add that the
consequences of this must be most painful to me from reflections
embittered by the warm affection I bore to those who view all
this so differently from me.

I have, from attention to you, sent back your messenger
immediately. I have, therefore, hardly had time to consider the
expressions of this letter. I shall, therefore, thank you if
(notwithstanding your press of business) you will, from
recollection of former habits, be kind enough to give me one
line, to tell me whether I have made myself understood or not;
and you will likewise think it necessary to give me some answer
respecting your _engagement_ to Mr. Gamon, in August last, to
include him in the _first list_ of Baronets. If you wish for a
copy of your letter on that subject, you shall have it, but an
immediate explanation to him from you, as well as me, is
absolutely necessary.

I am, with very sincere regrets, and with the deepest sensations
of pain for what has passed, and for what is yet to come,

Dear Sir,
Your very obedient and humble servant,
N. T.

1784.

Mr. Pitt's Administration--Lord Temple Created Marquis of Buckingham--His Private Notes on the Coalition.

The relative position of parties at the opening of 1784 was singular and unprecedented. The exultation of the public on the dismissal of the late Ministers, and the accession of Mr. Pitt to power, afforded the undeniable proof that the people were with the Sovereign and his advisers. Addresses of thanks and congratulation poured in from the municipal and corporate bodies in all parts of the kingdom, who felt their privileges endangered by the East India Bills, expressing the gratitude of the country to His Majesty for the vigour and resolution with which he had acted. The Coalition, nevertheless, still wielded a powerful majority in the Commons, with which they continued to harass the Cabinet, in spite of those demonstrations of public opinion which plainly warned them that, long as they might succeed in protracting the struggle, it could end only in disaster and defeat. The King and the Cabinet were, in short, brought into open hostility with the Commons by the persevering resistance of that unnatural and unprincipled combination which, stung by recent failure and disgrace, now manifested greater virulence than ever. Two days after the reassembling of Parliament, in January, Mr. Pitt introduced his India Bill. It was immediately rejected by the Commons. This was his first defeat. Every subsequent movement of the Government was frustrated in the same way. All the resources of parliamentary tactics were resorted to for the purpose of dislodging the Minister. Resolutions were passed declaring that the late changes were not calculated to conciliate the House, and that the continuance in office of the new Ministers was injurious to the interests of both King and people; and, finding that these resolutions failed of the desired effect, more violent measures were adopted. The Mutiny Bill was postponed, and the appropriation of the supplies was suspended.

In this desperate state of affairs, it appeared to be absolutely impossible to carry on the business of the country; and, driven to the last extremity, negotiations were opened with the Duke of Portland, in the hope of appeasing the Opposition, and strengthening the hands of Government. But the Duke of Portland made demands which were incompatible with the dignity of the Minister, and which only tended to increase the difficulty of the situation. It is believed that he went so far as to stipulate for Mr. Pitt's resignation. Mr. Pitt, however, refused to resign, and the negotiation was broken off. Throughout the whole of this contest, Mr. Pitt maintained an attitude of firmness, and displayed an amount of ability which greatly increased his popularity. The Opposition, powerful as it was, finally gave way under his undaunted spirit, their numbers daily diminishing as the inutility of perseverance became more and more evident, until at length he reduced the majority against him to one on a vote of confidence. At this point the Coalition vanished. It was not, however, till the month of March that he succeeded in crushing his formidable opponents; and having thus demonstrated the real strength of his Government by the most constitutional means, he dissolved the Parliament--an alternative which a less confident and conscientious Minister might have justifiably availed himself of long before. The appeal to the people was enthusiastically responded to; and when the next Parliament met, an amendment on the Address, moved by Lord Surrey, was rejected by a majority of 76. Mr. Pitt's Government was now established on the firmest basis.

Throughout these proceedings, Lord Temple maintained a strict reserve. Except when his opinions were solicited on the subject of Ireland, he does not appear to have tendered his advice, or in any form to have identified himself with the Government. His regard for Mr. Pitt isolated him from a prominent participation in public affairs at this crisis; for as he would not act against the Administration, and was precluded from the opportunity of serving it as he desired to do, no choice was left to him but that of a friendly neutrality. He still continued, notwithstanding, to feel a deep interest in Irish affairs; but it was limited almost exclusively to his private letters, and even in this shape he abstained from all direct interference. Lord Northington, who is said to have been invited by Mr. Pitt to retain the Lord-Lieutenancy, remained in office till February, when he was displaced by the Duke of Rutland. In the interval, Lord Temple's silence on all matters relating to the government of that country, has left scarcely any traces of his feelings or opinions in the scanty correspondence of this period.

On the 8th of January, writing to General Cuninghame, whom he had formerly recommended to the command in Ireland for his "superior fitness," and who had recently applied for it on the resignation of General Burgoyne, he intimates his position very clearly:

Variety of circumstances have placed me in a situation wholly
divested of power or of official information; so that in the
present moment I do not even know whether General Burgoyne is
still in command or not; still less do I know the ideas of
Government upon it.

General Cuninghame, in reply, expresses the regret which he felt, in common with others, that his Lordship, who had occupied so conspicuous a place in the favour of the King during the late ministerial crisis, had relinquished the power which His Majesty had invested him with.

For a thousand reasons, public and private, I am sorry you found
yourself under the necessity of resigning the Seals, and for the
same thousand reasons I hope your Lordship will soon again
accept of office.

The resignation of the Seals, here alluded to, was a step Lord Temple felt himself called upon to take by a nice and punctilious sense of honour; but which, upon a broader view of the exigencies of the public service, and the peculiar demands of the occasion, could not have been considered imperative. It had reference to the resolution of the Commons, impugning as a high crime and misdemeanour the circulation of the opinions of the King, with a view to influence the decision of Parliament. That resolution was avowedly pointed at Lord Temple; and in order that he might be enabled, without embarrassing the Sovereign or the Government, to meet any subsequent action which the Commons might think fit to found upon it, Lord Temple resigned. His chivalry, however, was a mere waste of that generous self-abnegation which characterized his whole public life. The Commons never proceeded any farther in the matter.

In another letter to General Cuninghame, dated 1st of March, Lord Temple expresses his regret that his recommendation of that officer to His Majesty had not the effect he desired, and again assures him that he possesses no power or influence with the Administration.

I am favoured with your letter upon General Pitt's appointment.
I need not repeat that if I had continued in Ireland, I should
have shown every attention to your wishes. In my present
situation I neither have been nor can be consulted in official
arrangements. My warm affection and near relationship towards
the Duke of Rutland and Mr. Pitt have disposed me to give them
the best advice which my experience in Ireland could suggest to
me; and in the course of these communications, your pretensions
to the command were stated with every advantage.

General Cuninghame replies by declaring that he considers himself very ill-used, after having supported the British Government in Ireland for thirty-three years in Parliament; but adds: "Why should I complain to my benefactor, who has it not in his power to relieve me?"

Amongst the Irish correspondents who continued to look up to Lord Temple as the statesman who best understood the circumstances and wants of the country, was Colonel Martin, the owner of the vast estates of Connemara, who afterwards acquired a special reputation in the Imperial Parliament, by his Bill for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. At the period when he was in correspondence with Lord Temple, the humanity for which he was subsequently distinguished did not, it is said, extend to his own species; for no man, in a land notorious for feudal violence, enjoyed a wider celebrity as a duellist. From a letter written in the July of this year, the following extract may be inserted, as being strikingly characteristic both of the writer and the state of society over which, in those belligerent days, men of such grave temperaments as the Grenvilles were called upon to preside.

You have perhaps heard already of my affair at Castlebar with
Mr. Fitzgerald. On the 14th I went to Castlebar, where with some
difficulty and after the use of language not very consonant to
my feelings, I prevailed on Mr. Fitzgerald to meet me in the
barrack-yard. When I took my first ground, I was distant about
eight yards from him, but on his declaring in a vaunting manner
that we were not near enough, I told him he should not have
reason to complain on that head, and accordingly I advanced
within less than five yards to him, and said he had it in his
power to make it much nearer. We both fired about the same time;
he missed me, but my shot entered his waistcoat and passed along
his breast and grazed his arm. He then called to me not to fire
again until he recovered his pistol, on which I declared I would
wait any time he chose. When he was ready, we fired as before;
my shot hit him just above the waistband of his breeches and got
out on the opposite side of his waistcoat. I was wounded in the
breast, but very slightly; and I am at present so well as to be
able to travel anywhere in my carriage.

Mr. Fitzgerald shows his clothes to every person, but declares
he is not wounded; for my part, I will not declare my reasons
for believing him to be unhurt. On the ground he declared
himself sorry for the offence, and that he was _wounded_. For
the last I declared my sorrow, so everything ended.

Although Lord Temple throughout this year, as he observes in one of his letters, "lived too little in the political world" to evince much interest in its vicissitudes, the honours which his official career had so well earned followed him into private life. Towards the close of 1784, he was created Marquis of Buckingham.

In his retirement, however, he was not an inattentive observer of public affairs, and seems to have contemplated the design of drawing up an account of that memorable struggle of parties of which he had been a witness, and especially of the transactions in which he had been directly and personally concerned. That he did not carry this design into execution, and that nothing remains of it but the following fragment, is much to be regretted, as few men were so well qualified by experience, knowledge and ability, to become the historian of these events. The fragment, for it is nothing more, breaking off at the most interesting point of the narrative, which it was evidently the writer's intention to pursue to the close, is printed with the title, and exactly in the form in which it was left by Lord Temple. It is hardly necessary to remark that there is an error in the date, which has reference to the months of November and December, 1783, and not 1784, a mistake which probably arose from the circumstance of these notes having been put together in the latter year.

LORD BUCKINGHAM'S PRIVATE NOTES.

I have much lamented that, during the very interesting period of
November and December, of 1784, I did not keep a regular journal
of the transactions of those months, in which I am supposed to
have borne so principal a share. Many of the minuter springs
which guided those operations have slipped my memory, from the
multiplicity of them, and from the rapidity with which they
crowded upon each other during the latter busy days, ending with
the formation of the new Ministry on the 21st of December, 1784.
It will, however, be necessary for me to take this narrative
from an earlier period, necessarily connected with it--I mean
the formation of the Government known by the name of the
Coalition Ministry.

I was in Ireland during that period, and was not uninformed,
authentically, of the disposition on the part of Lord North to
have supported the Ministry of Lord Shelburne upon terms of
provision for his friends, very short of those which he
afterwards claimed and extorted from Mr. Fox. It was clearly
known to Lord Shelburne, that no official arrangement was
proposed by Lord North for himself; and, to say truth, those of
his friends for whom he wished provision to be made, were at
least as unexceptionable as many, I may even add as most of
those whom Lord Shelburne had collected from the two former
Administrations. The infatuation, however, which pervaded the
whole of his Government, operated most forcibly in this
instance. The affectation of holding the ostensible language of
Mr. Pitt, in 1759, is only mentioned to show the ridiculous
vanity of the Minister who, unsupported by public success, or by
the parliamentary knowledge and man[oe]uvre of a Duke of
Newcastle, not only held it, but acted upon it, professing, in
his own words, to "know nothing of the management of a House of
Commons, and to throw himself upon the people alone for
support." This farce operated as it might be expected; and
although the negotiation between Lord North and Mr. Fox was
matter of perfect notoriety for several weeks, those moments
were suffered to pass away without any attempt to avail himself
of the various difficulties which presented themselves, at the
different periods of that discussion, till, at the very eve of
the ratification of it, Mr. Pitt was employed by his Lordship to
open propositions, through Mr. Fox, to that party. This was
rejected _in toto_; and the events which followed the meeting of
Parliament, are too well known to make a detail of them
necessary.

Before I proceed I wish to add, that although I have treated the
vanity and personal arrogance of Lord Shelburne as it deserves,
yet I will do him justice in acknowledging his merit, as one of
the quickest and most indefatigable Ministers that this country
ever saw. Many of his public measures were the result of a great
and an informed mind, assisted by a firm and manly vigour. And I
must ever think the Peace, attended with all its collateral
considerations, the most meritorious and happiest event for a
kingdom exhausted of men and of credit. I was not pledged in the
slightest degree to the measure; for, by my absence in Ireland,
and my little connection with his Lordship, I was enabled to
judge of it with coolness and impartiality; and from the
knowledge of the various difficulties attending it, I am
convinced that better terms could not be obtained, and that the
further prosecution of the war was impracticable, even if the
combination against us allowed the hope of success. This
testimony I have wished to bear, though it is not immediately
connected with my purpose.

Upon the resignation of Lord Shelburne, His Majesty was placed
in a situation in which, through the various events of his
reign, he never had yet found himself. The man[oe]uvres which he
tried, at different periods of the six weeks during which this
country was left literally without a Government, are well known.
Perhaps nothing can paint the situation of his mind so truly, as
a letter which he wrote to me on the 1st of April: this was an
answer to one which I thought it necessary to address to him
from Ireland, after receiving from him a message and a general
detail of his situation, through Mr. W. Grenville, to whom he
opened himself very confidentially upon the general state of the
kingdom.