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have partially repealed it in favour of America, and therefore,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.