resolution to proceed with the Catholic clauses, although they admitted
that the King had not been specifically acquainted with that part of the
measure which enabled Catholics to become Generals on the Staff; and
although Lord Sidmouth had consented only to the application of the law
of 1793; and although Lord Henry Petty, and Lord Holland, and Lord
Howick allowed that he had never consented beyond that; and although
Lord Howick admitted that, in his notice to the House of Commons, he had
not in his own mind, any larger measure, &c. &c. But Lord Grenville
declined to be the person who should state the subject again to the King
or ask his consent upon it. Lord Sidmouth said he certainly would not
interfere by volunteering his advice to the King; but, when he should
see the King on Wednesday, he should, if asked by the King, give his own
opinion and act upon it, whether sanctioned by the King or not; and so
the Cabinet parted.
In the House of Commons Lord Howick first mentioned to me the Catholic
clauses, and asked whether I thought they must necessarily pass through
a Committee of the whole House, as being of religion. I told him that
had really never occurred to me, but I would look into it and let him
know; and although I entirely disapproved of what he was about, it was
no reason why we should not freely converse about all the forms of
proceeding.
The House engaged from six in the evening till six in the morning,
hearing counsel and witnesses on the Westminster petition, complaining
of Mr. Sheridan for having tampered with witnesses.
_3rd._--Searched precedents for Catholic clauses. Lord Howick postponed
the Mutiny Bill Committee. I showed him the precedents I had collected.
He hoped “I should not take any part in the Committee.” But I told him
that “I must inevitably do so.”
_4th._--Lord Howick wrote me the following note:--
[_Private._]
STRATTON STREET,
_March 4, 1807_.
MY DEAR SIR,
I believe I shall alter my course of proceeding respecting the new
clauses, and introduce a new Bill instead. As the _measure_ is the
subject of a notice for discussion to-day, though in another form, I
take it for granted there can be no objection to my moving for leave to
bring in a Bill, if I should ultimately determine to do so, instead of
moving an instruction on the clauses in a committee.
I am afraid I have been guilty of an omission in not moving for an
address in answer to the King’s message, which I see was done in the
House of Lords yesterday; but, as the treaty was not laid before the
House, and the only matter on which a proceeding of the House was to be
had was voting the money, I thought it was the best way to refer the
message to the Committee of Supply; in which it was proposed to vote
to-day the sum advanced to the King of Prussia. Will you have the
goodness to let me know, when I come to the House to-day, whether this
has been the usual course of proceeding; or whether, if it should not be
deemed sufficiently respectful, anything can now be done to correct the
error.
I am, my dear Sir,
Ever yours sincerely,
HOWICK.
He drank tea with me in my room behind the chair. I told him I wished he
would confine his Bill to the Irish Law of 1793. To that I could agree;
but not without the same exclusion from the high military offices. He
said, “That was but _a small object_.” I replied, “But the principle is
large. You will never satisfy Mr. Keogh.” He said, “Oh, I did not think
of trying at that. But I have said too much on this subject to let
things remain as they are; we must do what satisfies us, whether it
satisfies Mr. Keogh or not.”
II. LETTER FROM THE DUKE OF PORTLAND TO THE KING.
=Source.=--_Diaries and Correspondence of James Harris, first Earl of
Malmesbury_, 1844. Vol. iv., p. 360.
_Copy of a Letter from the Duke of Portland to the King, sent
Thursday Evening, March 12th, 1807, to the Queen’s House,
acknowledged by Colonel Taylor Friday Morning the 13th._
BURLINGTON HOUSE,
_March 12th, 1807_.
SIR,
I am so sensible of my presumption in addressing your Majesty on a
subject of a public nature, that nothing but the confidence I have in
your Majesty’s goodness, and the attachment I bear your Majesty, would
induce me to do it. But it is a subject of such infinite magnitude,
that, were I silent, I feel I should deserve to forfeit that I am most
ambitious to be considered, of being looked upon by your Majesty as one
of your Majesty’s most loyal and devoted subjects and servants.
Your Majesty will probably anticipate the subject on which I cannot but
express my anxiety to lay my sentiments at your Majesty’s feet.
It is the Bill just proposed by Lord Howick, granting indulgences to the
Catholics; a measure, that should any peculiarity of circumstances have
induced your Majesty to acquiesce in, I should still think that by
following the dictates of my own conscience and voting against it, I
should not offend your Majesty.
But, impressed as I am with a belief of what must be your Majesty’s
opinions and wishes, I could not forgive myself were I to conceal from
your Majesty that your opinion is mistaken and your wishes not generally
understood; and, humbly permit me to represent to your Majesty that it
cannot well be otherwise, since one of your Majesty’s principal
Ministers in the House of Commons brings in the Bill. Should I be wrong,
and your Majesty has not given your consent to the measure in its
present shape, I have little apprehension in giving it as my opinion
that it may ultimately be defeated in its progress, though not, I fear,
till it comes into the House of Lords; but, for this purpose, I must
fairly state to your Majesty, that your wishes must be distinctly known,
and that your present Ministers should not have any pretext for
equivocating upon the subject, or any ground whatever to pretend
ignorance of your Majesty’s sentiments and determination, not only to
withhold your sanction from the present measure, but to use all your
influence in resisting it.
The effect of such a proceeding is so obvious, that I would not suggest
it, did I not believe that your Majesty’s business would be at a stand
in such a case; and that persons would not be ready to come forward
(should your Majesty think fit to call upon them) who are capable and
willing to undertake the management of your Majesty’s affairs. But for
this purpose it would be highly necessary and advantageous that the
public should know the necessity to which your Majesty was driven of
taking the conduct of your affairs out of the hands of those who now
administer them; that for this purpose your Majesty should send for Lord
Grenville, and state to him distinctly, that either your sentiments had
been misrepresented or that you never had consented to the measure
proposed by Lord Howick, and that, consistently with the opinion your
Majesty had uniformly expressed, it never could or would have your Royal
assent. It would then remain with Lord Grenville and his colleagues to
take their part; possibly they might give way and still remain your
Majesty’s Ministers; but, should they refuse to submit themselves to
your Majesty’s pleasure, the necessity of employing other persons would
be obvious to the whole world. The designs (which my feelings may
possibly lead me unjustly to attribute to them) could no longer be
mistaken, viz.: that the most venerated and sacred barriers of our
constitution should be undermined and sapped for the purpose of
introducing a new system into Church and State, and that your Majesty
was reduced to the necessity of submitting to them or quarrelling with
your Parliament.
Under such circumstances I cannot but believe, and cannot fear to assure
your Majesty, that the nation as well as individuals will come forward
in support of the established laws of the realm, and that persons will
be found able to carry on your Majesty’s business with talents and
abilities equal to those of your present Ministers. If your Majesty
should suppose that in the forming of such an Administration, I can
offer your Majesty any services, I am devoted to your Majesty’s
commands; but, while I say this, I feel conscious that my time of life,
my infirmities, and my want of abilities are not calculated for so high
a trust. I, however, can say that if, in this very momentous crisis,
your Majesty calls upon me, I will serve you zealously and faithfully to
the end of my existence.[11]
PARTY POLITICS (1807).
=Source.=--Extract from the Prospectus of _The Examiner_. By Leigh Hunt.
The great error of politicians is that old fancy of Solon, who insisted
that it was infamous for a citizen to be of no party, and endeavoured by
a law to make the Athenians hypocrites. This conceit not only destroys
every idea of mediation between two parties, but does not even suppose
that both may be wrong. Yet all history may convince us, that he who
resolutely professes himself attached to any party, is in danger of
yielding to every extreme for the mere reputation of his opinion: he
will argue for the most manifest errors of this or that statesman,
because he has hitherto agreed with him--an obstinacy as stupid, as if a
pedestrian were to express his satisfaction with a tempest at night,
because he had enjoyed sunshine in the morning.
The big and little Endians in _Gulliver_ have not yet taught us the
folly of mere party: and one of the most ridiculous inconsistencies in
the human character is that enjoyment which all ages have expressed in
satirical productions, without receiving benefit from them: they drink
the physic with a bold and pleasant countenance, and instantly prepare
to counteract its effect; or rather, every man thinks the physic
excellent for everybody but himself.--“Party,” says Swift, “is the
madness of many for the gain of a few.” When _Scarmentado_ in Voltaire
arrived at Ispahan, he was asked whether he was for black mutton or
white mutton: he replied, that it was equally indifferent to him,
provided it was tender. A wise man knows no party abstracted from its
utility, or existing, like a shadow, merely from the opposition of some
body. Yet, in the present day, we are all so erroneously sociable, that
every man, as well as every journal, must belong to some class of
politicians; he is either Pittite or Foxite, Windhamite, Wilberforcite,
or Burdettite: though at the same time two-thirds of these disturbers of
coffee-houses might with as much reason call themselves Hivites or
Shunamites, or perhaps Bedlamites.
THE BERLIN DECREES (1807).
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester_, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 134.
_Tuesday, December 1st._--Received the following letter from Perceval:
DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
The Parliament will not meet till the Thursday after the birthday. I am
culpable in not having sent you earlier intelligence, but the day was
not fixed till Wednesday last, and, of the determination not to meet
till near the birthday, unless circumstances particularly required it,
you were apprised by me before.
* * * * *
The business of recasting the law of trade and navigation, as far as
belligerent principles are concerned, for the whole world, has occupied
me very unremittingly for a long time; and the subject is so extensive,
and the combinations so various, that, even supposing our principles to
be right, I cannot hope that the execution of the principle must not in
many respects be defective; and I have no doubt we shall have to watch
it with new provisions and regulations for some time.
The short principle is that trade in British produce and manufactures,
and trade either from a British port or with a British destination, is
to be protected as much as possible. For this purpose all the countries
where French influence prevails to exclude the British flag shall have
no trade but to and from the country, or from its allies. All other
countries, the few that remain strictly neutral (with the exception of
the colonial trade, which backwards and forwards direct they may carry
on) cannot trade but through this being done as an ally with any of the
countries connected with France. If, therefore, we can accomplish our
purposes, it will come to this, that either those countries will have no
trade, or they must be content to accept it through us.
This is a formidable and tremendous state of the world; but all the part
of it which is particularly harassing to English interests was existing
through the new severity with which Buonaparte’s decrees of exclusion
against our trade were called into action.
Our proceeding does not aggravate our distress from it. If he can keep
out our trade he will; and he would do so if he could, independent of
our orders. Our orders only add this circumstance: they say to the
enemy, if you will not have _our_ trade, as far as we can help it you
shall have _none_. And as to so much of any trade as you can carry on
yourselves, or others carry on with you through us, if you admit it,
you shall pay for it. The only trade cheap and untaxed which you shall
have, shall be either direct from us, in our own produce and
manufactures, or from our allies, whose increased prosperity will be an
advantage to us.
* * * * *
Yours, very truly,
SP. PERCEVAL.
CORUNNA (1809).
I. BULLETIN OF JAN. 21.
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester._ Vol. ii., p. 164.
[_Jan._] _21st._--The annexed bulletin was circulated.
DOWNING STREET,
_Jan. 21st._
Brigadier General Stewart arrived this morning at Lord Castlereagh’s
with despatches from Sir John Moore, dated Corunna, 13th inst., upon
which place he had directed his retreat, and not on Vigo, as he
originally intended. Sir John Moore had effected his retreat to Corunna
with the loss of only part of his baggage; there had been repeated
skirmishes with the rear guard, in which we had uniformly repulsed the
enemy, and at Vigo Sir John Moore offered the enemy battle, but the
French declined it. The enemy, when Brigadier General Stewart left
Corunna, were in force in the neighbourhood, but it was trusted that Sir
John Moore would effect his re-embarkation without much loss, as the
transports which he had sent for from Vigo were entering the Bay at
Corunna, when General Stewart sailed on the 14th.
II. THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN MOORE AT CORUNNA (1809).
=Source.=--Charles Wolfe.
I.
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O’er the grave where our hero we buried.
II.
We buried him darkly, at dead of night,
The sods with our bayonets turning;
By the struggling moonbeam’s misty light,
And the lantern dimly burning.
III.
No useless coffin enclosed his breast,
Not in sheet or in shroud we wound him;
But he lay like a warrior taking his rest,
With his martial cloak around him.
IV.
Few and short were the prayers we said,
And we spoke not a word of sorrow;
But we steadfastly gazed on the face that was dead,
And we bitterly thought of the morrow.
V.
We thought, as we hollowed his narrow bed,
And smoothed down his lonely pillow,
That the foe and the stranger would tread o’er his head,
And we far away on the billow!
VI.
Lightly they’ll talk of the spirit that’s gone,
And o’er his cold ashes upbraid him;--
But little he’ll reck, if they let him sleep on
In the grave where a Briton has laid him.
VII.
But half of our heavy task was done
When the clock struck the note for retiring:
And we heard the distant and random gun
That the foe was sullenly firing.
VIII.
Slowly and sadly we laid him down,
From the field of his fame fresh and gory;
We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone--
But we left him alone with his glory!
IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ECONOMY (1809).
=Source.=--_Diaries ... Right Hon. George Rose_, 1860. Vol. ii., p. 336.
_Lord Mulgrave to Mr. Rose._
ADMIRALTY,
_Feb. 4th, 1809_.
MY DEAR ROSE,
It must be ever unpleasant to me not to accede at once to any measure
proposed by you and by Canning; more especially as I find the Memorial
is in the hands of the clerks of the Council before I had an opportunity
of answering your note.
Since I came into office I have proceeded on all questions of
augmentation of salaries, on a strong impression of the importance of
public economy, and on a full conviction that the advance of any one
salary does not rest there, but raises a cry of claim, founded upon
relative duties and rank, with an air of justice from precedent; which
involves either an excessive increase of charge to the public, or an
imputation of harshness and injustice, against the person in authority,
who rejects the authority of the precedent, and refuses the increase
demanded. I feel how impossible it is for me to follow up the principle
I have set out upon either with comfort to myself or advantage to the
public, if I alone pursue it. Upon all the demands of clerks for
increase of salary, I have consulted Perceval, to ascertain how far the
general charges upon the funds of Government would be influenced by such
increase; because I know that the advance in one department must be
followed by a similar advance in every other. I relinquished, on the
representation of Perceval, a most important, and almost necessary,
measure of increasing the appointments of the _Naval_ Lords of the
Admiralty. I rejected the recommendation of the Commissioners of Naval
Revision for the addition of £200 per annum to the Commissioners of the
Navy, because I did not think that increase necessary, whilst so many
eager candidates were pressing for the situation. If the Paymaster to
the Treasurer of the Navy has his salary raised, will not the
Commissioners of Victualling and Transport Boards, whose duties are so
constant and laborious, especially the former, have a claim to a similar
advance? I have refused the advance to the Commissioners at the Cape as
recommended by the Commissioners of Naval Revision; and in short I have
consented to no increase of salary without being persuaded that proper
persons could not be found without such increase; and therefore, as far
as my consent is required, I cannot give it, but upon that persuasion,
in any case. I am aware that I have created much dissatisfaction by
holding the public purse-strings so close; but it is from an
apprehension that without very rigid economy we can neither retain the
goodwill of the public, nor hold out against the perseverance and
resources of the enemy.
Ever yours sincerely,
MULGRAVE.
RESIGNATION OF PORTLAND (1809).
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester_, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 200.
_Sunday, Sept. 10th._--Received the following letter from Perceval.
[_Most private and confidential._]
DOWNING STREET,
_Sept. 9th, 1809_.
MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I cannot let the week close without giving you some information (though
I have delayed till now giving you any, with the hopes of giving you
more than I am able, even at present) upon a subject of great
importance.
_The Duke of Portland has resigned_, the King only desiring he would
keep his office till some arrangement might be made for his successor.
The story is a great deal too long for a note or a letter; suffice it
to say, that it is mixed in some respects with the most painful
considerations that it has ever been my misfortune to have felt.
Whether it will be possible for us to form any arrangement, or what it
will be, I really cannot at present state to you, as I do not know
myself. According to present appearances, Castlereagh _cannot_ stay with
us, from a sense of what is due to himself; and Canning _will_ not.
Conceive me then, and my situation in your house, under such
circumstances, and judge whether, if these appearances are realised, it
would be just by the King or by the country in me, to affect to be able
to remain either without them or some other _strength_, where how to
acquire it is not very easy to imagine.
I wished you not to know this subject from any other quarter but myself,
and I feel that I have only whetted your curiosity, and it would take a
volume to communicate it fully. Possibly, therefore, till a personal
meeting, I must defer the full explanation. The result, whatever it may
be, you shall hear as soon as I can tell you. The cruel thing upon
Castlereagh is, that though this is entirely independent of the late
expedition, it is next to impossible but that the public impression will
connect the two together.
I am, my dear Mr. Speaker,
Yours very truly,
SP. PERCEVAL.
DUEL OF CANNING AND CASTLEREAGH (1809).
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester_, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 209.
_Letter from Mr. Perceval._
DOWNING STREET,
_Sept. 20th, 1809_.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER,
I have had so much to say that I have no time to say it; but I might
have found time to have thanked you for your kind and ready answer to my
former letter.
You have judged me _perfectly right_. If you had asked my advice I
could not have been so dishonest as not to have given it for the
decision you have made. Castlereagh and Canning have been fighting.
Thank God Canning is not severely hurt, and Castlereagh is not touched.
Terrible, all this, for public impression. What we are to do is not
finally settled. It must end in an attempt to form an united Government
with our opponents. But it is a bitter pill to swallow for more than
one.
When I can tell you anything positive, and can get a moment to tell it,
I will.
Yours very truly,
SP. PERCEVAL.
MILITARY EXPENSES (1806-1809).
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester_, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 239.
The military expenses of the last four years have been:--
1806.--Army £16,605,000
Navy 15,448,000
Ordnance 4,366,000
-----------
£36,419,000
-----------
1807.--Army £16,661,000
Navy (Expedition to Copenhagen) 19,673,000
Ordnance 4,464,000
-----------
£40,798,000
-----------
1808.--Army £17,365,000
Navy (Expedition to Spain and
Portugal) 18,156,000
Ordnance 3,980,000
-----------
£39,501,000
-----------
1809.--Army £17,459,000
Vote of Credit 2,500,000
----------
19,959,000
Navy (Expeditions to
Spain and Portugal,
and Walcheren) 18,986,000
Vote of Credit 500,000
Additional 1,291,000
----------
20,777,000
Ordnance 5,275,000
-----------
Total £46,011,000
-----------
TALAVERA: PROTEST BY LORDS (1809).
=Source.=--_Protests of the Lords._ Vol. ii., 1741-1825, p. 423.
_January 26, 1810._--The thanks of the Lords were voted to Lord Viscount
Wellington for his services on the 27th and 28th of July, 1809, at the
victory of Talavera. The title of Viscount Wellington of Talavera was
conferred on the 4th of September, 1809. The motion was made by Lord
Liverpool and opposed by Lords Suffolk, Grosvenor, and Grey. The
following protest was inserted:
1st. Because in the battle of Talavera, though eminently
distinguished by those splendid proofs of discipline and valour
which his Majesty’s troops have never failed to display, we cannot
recognize those unequivocal characteristics of victory which can
alone form an adequate title to the thanks of this House. On the
contrary, that the British army appears to have been improvidently
led into a situation, in which the repulse of the enemy, effected
with a great loss, produced neither security from a subsequent
attack, nor relief from the distress under which our brave troops
were suffering, and was immediately followed by the necessity of a
precipitate retreat, whereby our wounded were left to fall into the
hands of the enemy.
2ndly, Because, by voting the thanks of this House on such an
occasion, we diminish the value of the most honourable reward we
have it in our power to confer, whilst we indirectly sanction the
propriety of that elevation to the honours of the peerage, with
which his Majesty, without inquiry, was advised to mark his
approbation of the commander of his army in Spain, at a time when
his ministers were informed of the unfortunate consequences which
might be expected to follow, and in fact did follow, that
dear-bought success.
CHARLES GREY, EARL GREY.
JAMES MAITLAND, LORD LAUDERDALE
(EARL OF LAUDERDALE).
WALCHEREN EXPEDITION (1810).
A.--A SQUIB ON THE EXPEDITION.
=Source.=--_Diary of Lord Colchester_, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 232.
The following squib was published in the papers at this time on the
Walcheren Expedition:
EXTRACT FROM THE GRAND ROMANTIC DRAMA LATELY PERFORMED FOR THE
AMUSEMENT OF THE EMPEROR OF FRANCE.