1807.

statements, were sent to his Majesty at Windsor, and received his most gracious perusal; but no objection whatever was then made by his Majesty to the measure, to which they related. However, subsequently to this period, there certainly did arise a doubt, whether the measure had been distinctly understood in its fullest extent. It is only fair to say, that this doubt originated with some members of the cabinet. On its being started, I, and some others, with whom I had the honor to act, were most anxious, that it should be completely removed, before the introduction into Parliament. have always considered, that a minister in Parliament acts in a double capacity; he acts as a minister, and hears as an individual member of Parliament. He may introduce or support a measure unconnected with government considerations. Such was the conduct of Mr. Pitt on the propositions for reform, and for the abolition of the Slave Trade; the latter of which has, thank God, been at last effected, and is a measure which, if there were nothing else to distinguish the late government during the short period, that it had existed, will shed on it sufficient lustre. But when a member of administration introduces any measure as a mea sure of government, it is most clearly his duty to be previously convinced, that he has the concurrence of the cabinet, and the sanction of royal authority. I should, indeed, have thought my self reprehensible in the highest degree, and deserving of all the foul reproach, that has been so lavishly bestowed upon me, had I introduced the

measures which I did introduce, without having ascertained, that it had the concurrence of the the cabinet and the sanction of the King.

1807.

I have before stated, that a doubt sprung up Further particulars with regard to the latter it was therefore deter- of the dis that I (Lord Spencer being absent on account of patch. ill health) should write a dispatch to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, inclosing those clauses of the bill, in which the proposed measure was contained, and restating, in conformity to the sentiments in the dispatch, which had been sent in answer to the communication of Mr. Elliott's conference, that every commission in the army was to

be
open to the Catholics. This dispatch I wrote
with as much clearness, as it was in my power to
do. With these clauses it went to the King on
Monday. On Tuesday it returned from Windsor,
without the slightest hint of objection on the part
of his Majesty; and as I had been accustomed to
do, on receiving the royal sanction, I immediately
forwarded the dispatch to Ireland. In the mean
time objections were stated, merely in point of
form, to the mode of proceeding in this measure
by clauses in the Mutiny Bill, and on a full recon-
sideration of the subject, it was thought better to
introduce a separate bill. On Wednesday I attend-
ed the levee at St. James's, and had my usual au-
dience of his Majesty. After that audience, his
Majesty enquired, what business was going for-
vard that day in the House of Commons? I re-
plied, that the Mutiny Bill was to pass through
one of its stages, and explained to his Majesty the

1807.

reasons, which had induced me to embody the
clauses for allowing the Catholic's admission into
the army and
and navy in a separate bill. His Majes-
ty approved of the change, and then asked me,
whether the bill were the same as the Irish bill of
1793? I stated in what the difference consisted;
observing, that it had been fully detailed in the va-
rious dispatches previously submitted to his Ma-
jesty's inspection. Here, Sir, I must acknowledge,
that his Majesty did express a general dislike and
lisapprobation of the measure; but not in such a
manner, as to induce me to conclude, that the re-
luctant assent originally given by his Majesty was
withdrawn, and that I was not empowered to in-
troduce the bill. What confirmed me in my opi-
nion was, that my Lord Grenville had a subsequent
audience with his Majesty, in which his Majesty
did not make a single observation on the bill. On
Thursday or Friday (I do not recollect which) I
introduced this bill into the House. During the
whole of a week, although I had various communi-
cations with his Majesty on other subjects, his
Majesty did not make the slightest objection to
this bill, nor was any intimation on the subject
eceived from his Majesty, untill the Wednesday
following; at which time I was precluded from
attending my duty in this House by a family cala-
mity, when his Majesty stated decidedly his
objections to any extension of the provisions of the
Irish act of 1793. From that moment, we were
convinced, that his Majesty had misunderstood the
subject; or rather, I was convinced, that I had

misunderstood his Majesty. Having unfortunately introduced the measure into the House of Commons, in the belief, that I was sanctioned to do so by the King, I immediately suspended any further proceedings on the bill, demanded an audience of his Majesty on the following day, and convinced him, that I had been misled, and that I had misunderstood those gracious expressions, which he had used on the subject on a former occasion.

1807.

"From that moment it became the most anxious Royal ob consideration of ministers how to reconcile their Lord Howjections to public duty with their respect for the feelings of" his Majesty. We attempted to correct the bill; but the objection of his Majesty was so extensive, that we found it was impossible so to modify the measure, as to remove that objection, and at the same time leave it efficiently beneficial. In this situation we preferred abandoning the bill altoge ther. In doing this, Sir, I own, that I made a most painful sacrifice of all personal feelings to my sense of public duty: but this is a sacrifice, which, however painful I trust I shall never hesitate to make. We therefore offered to withdraw the bill, but at the same time, we felt the necessity of adding something to that offer. On a former occasion a desire had been intimated, that nothing of that kind should in future be pressed. Other intimations had been made of a similar nature. We, therefore, thought it right to reserve to ourselves the power of expressing our opinion, and of suggesting to his Majesty any future measure, that might seem to us expedient, accompanied, how

1807.

ever, with a respectful declaration, that all the members of the cabinet were most eager to contribute every thing in their power to his Majesty's personal ease and comfort. This part of our proceeding, Sir, has been most shamefully misrepresented to the public. In falsely stating, that we wished to reserve to ourselves the right of pressing this subject on his Majesty in future, it has been omitted, that our only risk was to submit any mea sure to his Majesty's revision; it was omitted, that we assured his Majesty of our earnest desire to regard his personal ease and comfort. Sir, in what situation should we have been placed, had we not retained the right of expressing our sentiments? The bill introduced by us must be withdrawn. I certainly felt, that without exposing his Majesty's opinion, I might have assigned sufficient reasons for withdrawing the bill, on account of the opposition, which had been made to it; but, Sir, was it possible, consistently with mine honor, and consistently with my sense of duty to my colleagues, that I could refrain from declaring my own senti ments upon it? Besides, in withdrawing this mea sure, we had actually to look to a Catholic petition, and to the pressing the general question with more eagerness than ever, on the consideration of Parliament. His Majesty in reply, expressed his satisfaction at the deference we had shewn him, but required us to withdraw the other part of our statement, and to give an assurance in writing, not only, that we would never again propose measure in question, but also, that we would never

the