1807. Resolution to withdraw the bill. Was it possible to do more for the purpose of ascertaining his opinion? What must be their feelings then, when they saw libels circulated, in which it was asserted, that they had deluded their Sovereign? The measure was proposed by Lord Howick, a man of as high and punctilious honor as ever lived, and he would not have done so, if he had not conceived, that he had full authority to do it. That noble person came from the conference with a perfect conviction, that he had permission to propose it. He was at the very time waiting at the door to be admitted, and Lord Howick told him distinctly as he came out, that he had authority to propose the measure to Parliament. He had an interview with the King immediately after, at which his Majesty did not mention one word upon the subject; nor, indeed, was there a word said to his Majesty about it. He would ask their Lordships. Whether the circumstances he mentioned did not authorize the conclusion he had drawn from them? The business was accordingly opened by Lord Howick on Wednesday the 4th of March; and it was not until the 11th, that lie understood some misconception existed. On that day he learned they had been mistaken, and that his Majesty's consent would be withheld. Nothing more passed than expressions of disapprobation on one side, and of concern on the other. Much discussion took place on the next day among those, who were friendly to the bill. They found they had proposed a measure not agreeable to his Majesty, and they came to a resolution, for which he did not know they were perfectly ex- 1807. cusable, to withdraw parts of the bill, and to submit it with modifications. They proposed to his Majesty to be allowed to modify the bill to that of 1793: a proposal, which was received with gracious condescension. Upon reflection, they found, that the difficulty respecting the Dissenters was insurmountable; and accordingly they stated, in writing, that as they could not alter the bill as they wished, they requested, that they might be permitted to drop it altogether. Perhaps their Lordships would think they had gone too far in consenting to drop a measure, which they conceived necessary for the safety of the Empire, His answer was: they wished to accommodate their conduct to the feelings of his Majesty. The measure, however, was before Parliament, where it received the warm approbation of many persons, and it was out of their power to stop the discussion. It was not to be expected, that it would be allowed to drop without discussion, and without ministers being called upon to account for their conduct. Had they allowed the bill to drop, still the measure would come before Parliament in another shape, and they would be obliged to explain themselves, and state why the same conciliating policy, which they recommended out of office, was not followed, when they were in. They therefore felt it to be indispensably necessary (he would use the very words they employed) humbly to submit to his Majesty a representation as to their future conduct. They did not state, that they 1507. Unconstitu tional manded. must reserve to themselves the liberty of submitting to his Majesty such measures, as they thought necessary with respect to the Catholics, but of submitting them to his Majesty for his decision. They also reserved the privilege of explaining themselves, whenever this subject should be brought before Parliament. The answer was a gracious acceptance of what they had proposed, accompanied with an expression of regret, that any necessity should arise for avowing such opinions to Parlia ment. f To their utter astonishment, however, they were pledge de- Soon after called upon to give a written pledge, that no further concession to the Catholics should be proposed. A more painful condition could not have been imposed upon any set of men. What would be their situation, if they were to be bounden by their oatlis, and fettered at the same time by a written engagement? Were they to withhold that advice, which they might deem necessary for the safety, nay the very existence of the empire? What would be the effect upon the constitution ? Could it exist, if such a principle were recognized, as that ministers were acting upon a written pledge of the nature he had stated? Suppose the existence of Ireland at stake, and ministers were called upon to account for their conduct, was he to justify him elf by saying, "Oh! that corner was "torn out of the map of the Empire, which was "committed to my keeping." Would not the recognition of such a principle strike at the very root of the constitution, overtuin the maxim, "That "the King can do no wrong, but that his minis 66 ters could," and re-establish that monstrous and diabolical principle, by which a Sovereign was brought to the bar of his subjects. He would not take up more of their Lordship's time. When it pleased his Majesty to call him to his councils, he accepted the invitation, not as a matter of enjoyment, but as a matter of duty. He would assure his successors whatever they might think, that they neither came to a bed of roses," nor have they left one behind them. As to Ireland, he would say, that if any other system was adopted there, than that which was so happily pursued by by his noble friend near him (Lord Hardwicke). and the noble Duke, who succeeded him, that country would be in immense danger. If even those religious animosities were revived, which had produced such extraordinary exertions of the authority of government, it would, he feared, be impossible again to allay and compose them.* Although no debate ensued upon this Expose of Lord Grenville's, yet Lord Hawkesbury said some words, which threw considerable light upon the history, but shed no lustre upon the honour and consistency of Mr. Pitt, who, to regain his situation, volunteered that very pledge, which Lord Grenville and his colleagues nobly declined, when called upon by their Sovereign to subscribe. "As Lord Grenville had mentioned what he conceived to be the "line of his duty, by instancing the conduct of that great man, Mr. Pitt, who, when he went out of office, on this very question, yet on his return did voluntarily state, that he "never would bring the subject again under his Royal conside"ration. Whence did this disposition arise, but from a laudable, "attention to the conscientious feelings of his Sovereign. He "did not state this with any view of casting the smallest re 1807. 1807. On the same day after Mr. Huskisson had movLord How-ed in the House of Commons, that they should ik's Ex pose. adjourn to the Wednesday se'nnight, Lord Howick addressed the Speaker in a very impressive manner; he prefaced the explanation, which he had promised on the preceding evening, with several observations, which were nearly similar to those made by Lord Grenville, and then spoke nearly as follows: Sir, it is neither in my nature, nor in my habits, to shrink from the examination of my life, but I am induced to this alternative, either to submit to have the public mind prejudiced by reports and misrepresentations, supported by partial extracts from confidential papers, or, in the absence of those, who cannot now be present, to do that, which justice to myself and to my colleagues imperiously calls upon me to do. By a fair, open, and manly exposition of every part of the late transactions, to afford the only antidote against the mischievous effects of those garbled statements and wilful misrepresentations.* Under such cir proach on Lord Grenville, whose conduct was different, but to shew the regard, which a great minister had paid to the wishes *of his King, on a question which involved scruples of con6: science in the Royal breast." In a subsequent debate on the 15th of April, upon Mr. Lyttleton's motion, which will be noticed hereafter, Lord Castlereagh explicitly admitted that "What gentlemen had seen of "the documents connected with this transaction, had been pro duced by the permission of his Majesty, which permission had "been solicited by his Majesty's confidential servants, in consequence of their knowledge, that these minutes had been communicated to two individuals, not members of the cabinet, nor |