Pall Mall, Jan. 7th, 1783.
My dear Brother,
Although I think there is every reason to hope that I shall be
able to send you by a messenger, either to-night or to-morrow
morning at furthest, the result of the Cabinet, which, after
having been postponed ever since Sunday, is at last to be held
this evening; yet, as I know by experience, that it may be again
deferred, I would not omit writing to you by post express upon a
subject which you will perhaps think trifling in itself. I went
this morning to Townshend, with your despatches of the 2nd
instant, upon which we had very little conversation, except his
assurances of bringing the business to an end this evening.
After that I turned the conversation to your Order, and read him
the names. To my utter astonishment, he started a doubt whether
my Lord Courtown _would take it_. To which I answered, that the
first names in the list having signified their consent,
undoubtedly it was not a thing to be offered where there was the
least chance of a refusal. He then said that he would take upon
him to sound Lord Courtown; and that, as he was his
brother-in-law, he would throw out to him that a thing of the
sort was in agitation; and that if Lord Courtown should like it,
he believed that _he, Townshend_, would have interest enough to
_procure it for him_. It was impossible for me to tell
Townshend, or even to give him to understand what nevertheless
certainly ought to have occurred to him, that it would but ill
answer your purpose, whatever it was, in recommending Lord
Courtown, that the merit of it should be ascribed to him.
I had nothing, therefore, left but to drop the conversation, and
to write to you, as I now do, immediately on my return home, to
suggest to you whether it would not be worth your while, without
affecting to know anything of this, to write to Lord Courtown to
offer it, and perhaps to Townshend, to make a great merit with
him of the recommendation of his brother-in-law, as the only
non-resident Knight. The sooner you send in the list and plan,
&c., &c., undoubtedly the better.
Your names appear to me all unexceptionable, except possibly
Lord Bechoe, who you know will give some trouble to the heralds
to make out whether his father, who was a grazier, ever had a
father of his own. But he is a man of great fortune, and a
steady friend of Government, and I should think might pass. Lord
Nugent's refusal leaves a vacancy. I own I should be inclined to
Lord Mountgarret as the senior Viscount, which would show that
it was not to be exclusively confined to Earls, at the same time
that no other person could pretend the same claims with so old a
peer, the senior Viscount, and the first man in rank of so great
a family. Besides, this might detach Butler, of the county
Kilkenny, from Flood; and it is surely a great object to cut him
off from all hopes of the county, as that would give him an
appearance of popularity, &c., &c. Unless you do something of
this sort, shall you not apprehend affronting the lower orders
of the peerage? If Lord Kinsale was not what he is, I should
wish for him on the same account, but that is impossible. Pray
consider the other well, for it strikes me as important.
I return you the Derry Papers. Townshend is to search his office
for their intercepted correspondence here, which I will send
you.
Bulkeley wrote me the enclosed, to which I returned an
ostensible answer, referring to you, but at the same time
distinguishing between a pension, and provision out of the
revenue for a revenue officer's widow.
Townshend sends you McLaughlin's petition and case. What does
Lord Beauchamp mean by his letter to the "Vol." about the King's
speech?
Pray desire Lady Temple not to forget Lord Nugent's velvet, or
he will be outrageous.
Believe me, ever yours,
W. W. G.
One good result had been attained by the perseverance with which Mr.
Grenville pursued his object with Ministers in reference to the
Renunciation Bill, and the consistency he observed in maintaining the
policy which he and Lord Temple knew to be essential to the security of
the British power in Ireland. If that policy was not carried out, Lord
Temple was relieved from all responsibility, and was prepared to
relinquish into other hands the confusion and disorder which he could
not obtain the means of ameliorating. As Mr. Grenville observes in the
following letter, he was "completely master of his own ground;" he had
clearly stated, and constantly urged his views of the only course that
could be followed with safety or credit; and if he failed in carrying
them into effect, the _onus_ would rest with the Administration. Happily
he did not fail. The Bill was shaped and passed; but the obstacles which
impeded it, and which are detailed in subsequent letters, rendered its
ultimate success doubtful up to the last moment.
Looking back, at this distance of time, upon the curious struggle which
took place in the Cabinet on this question, we cannot fail to be struck
by the immense disproportion between cause and effect exhibited in this
strange episode in the history of the Shelburne Administration. The full
recognition of the rights of Ireland had received the concurrent
sanction of the Legislatures of both kingdoms only a short time before.
No doubt whatever existed as to the intention of the repeal of the
Declaratory Law. The Volunteers, to whose energetic demonstrations that
healing measure was mainly attributable, were thoroughly satisfied, and,
instead of displaying their nationality in angry and defiant
resolutions, they adopted the language of congratulation and
enthusiastic allegiance to the Government. This felicitous state of
things was suddenly interrupted by one of those incidents which no
foresight could have anticipated, and which, absolutely trivial in
itself, was magnified at once, by the jealous spirit of patriotism, into
a violation of the solemn compact that had just been ratified on both
sides of the Channel. An Irish cause was brought into an English court
of justice, was heard in the ordinary way, like any other cause, without
reference to the competency of the tribunal before which it was tried,
and decided, as a matter of course, by Lord Mansfield. The remedy for
this contravention of the notorious settlement of the judicial
independence of Ireland was plain. The decision was waste paper: it
could not be carried into effect. The Irish might have rested satisfied
with the power which they possessed of nullifying and rejecting the
authority of the English Judge. But the delays of the Cabinet awakened
their suspicions, and they apprehended, not, perhaps, very unnaturally,
that if they suffered this single case of illegal interference to pass
without some decisive declaration on the part of the English
Legislature, it would be wrested into a precedent for further and still
more dangerous innovations. Mr. Grattan held this opinion also, but
trusted implicitly to the honour of the English Parliament for a measure
that should fully set at rest all uneasiness on the subject; while Lord
Temple was so impressed with the propriety of adopting such a measure
that he drew up the Bill of Renunciation, which, after much superfluous
discussion, ultimately passed into a law.
The case itself, however, lay in the narrowest compass, and admitted of
the simplest solution. The Irish cause which had occasioned all this
trouble, and menaced so seriously the tranquillity of the country, had
been entered for hearing _before_ the operation of the Repeal, but
delayed by some accident until a subsequent term. The reason why it was
not dismissed when it came before the court was, that the time had
elapsed for pleading against the competency of the court, pleadings
having already begun upon the matter of the suit. The parties could not
plead to the writ--to use the legal phraseology--because they had
already pleaded in chief. The only time when, according to the practice
of the court, the competency of the court could be objected to was when
the cause was entered; but at that time the objection did not exist, and
when the cause came on for hearing it was too late. Lord Mansfield took
the cause without any reference to the special circumstances attending
it, which he was not judicially called upon to notice. He acted strictly
on the practice of the court; and, although it was held by some of the
statesmen of the day that he ought to have taken a more enlarged view of
so peculiar a case, it was the opinion of Mr. Fox that he could not have
acted otherwise than he did. At all events, the case could never have
been drawn into a precedent. The real point for consideration, upon
which Mr. Fox--who had himself framed the Act of Repeal--entertained
some doubts, was whether the Repeal was sufficiently minute and
comprehensive in its scope, to extinguish the right of appeal in Irish
cases, by writs of error, to the King's Bench of Great Britain. But this
point was not raised, on its special merits, by Lord Mansfield's
decision, which involved nothing more than a technical question arising
out of the practice of the court. It was wise to allay the feverish
anxiety of the people, by removing any obscurity that hung over the
settlement of the separate judicature of Ireland; but, such being
clearly the intention of the Imperial Legislature, it is difficult to
understand why it should have entailed so much clamour and
misunderstanding.