1783. (continued 4)

Government had not the spirit to take a part against the motions of thanks in either House, but I have every reason to think that they would have done it, if there had been the smallest prospect of success in the attempt. You must observe that the vote of the House of Commons is much weaker than that of the Lords; Gardiner was obliged, by the interference of Government's friends, to omit several expressions which, if they had been retained, would have rendered the vote more just to your Lordship's Administration, but would have occasioned debate. The fact is, that no compliment to the Act of Renunciation, or even to the framer of it, can be borne with patience by certain supporters of the present Castle.

And in the report of his own speech on this occasion, which accompanies the letter, Lord Mornington plainly charges the Government with duplicity in reference to Lord Temple's system of economy. Referring to a passage in the Lord-Lieutenant's speech, where his Excellency, in recommending the establishment of the Genevans, reminded Parliament of their duty to "avoid unnecessary expense," his Lordship expresses a hope that in "other cases, where all profusion would be dangerous, and where the public safety demanded the most rigid economy, in the establishments of Government, his Excellency would think it his duty to avoid all unnecessary expense;" and then, comparing the recommendation respecting the Genevans with another passage where his Excellency applied for a supply, and in which "his Excellency's economy made no appearance," Lord Mornington goes on to say:

Comparing the two passages of the speech, he [Lord Mornington] was apt to imagine that the expression, "unnecessary expense," was dictated by another spirit, and with other views, than of saving to the public: he suspected that it was meant to insinuate by so special, and seemingly superfluous a recommendation of economy in the further progress of the establishment of the Genevans, that there had been some neglect of economy in the original foundation of the scheme; if that was meant, he called upon the confidential servants of the Castle to avow it; if not, he insisted that they should do justice to the personage who had originally framed this plan, and disclaim his construction of this ambiguous phrase. He knew what had been the language of the Castle on this subject; he knew how this scheme had been decried; and what a damp had been cast upon the proposers of it—such a damp, as he had reason to believe, that the settlement had not advanced one step since the departure of Lord Temple; and he would add, in justice both to the late and present Ministry, that he, in his conscience, believed, if the public were put to any unnecessary expense by the settlement, it must be attributed solely and entirely to the delays and impediments which had been thrown in its way by the present Castle.

On a subsequent day, moving the thanks of the House to Lord Temple, Lord Mornington delivered an eloquent panegyric upon his Government. He spoke of the Act of Renunciation as having produced an "instantaneous calm in Ireland," and, adverting to other matters, observed:

These were the great public acts of Lord Temple's Government, the nation at large had felt their effects, the Lord-Lieutenant had from the throne applauded them; the House itself had applauded them in detail, and therefore would not object to doing so in the gross, which he now called upon the House to do. With regard to the general attention of Lord Temple to the common duties of his office, and his management of the interior system of government here, he would deliver no opinion of his own; he would appeal to those whose high stations and confidential offices gave them constant access to the person and councils of Lord Temple, to testify his ability and assiduity in business, the extent of his researches, the vigilance with which he penetrated into the secrets of departments where the most gross rapine and peculation had been practised for ages with impunity, and particularly the firm integrity with which he resisted all jobs, however speciously concealed, or powerfully recommended.

Nothing need be added to this unimpeachable eulogium on the character of Lord Temple's administration of the Government of Ireland. It comes from an authority above suspicion, and its statements will guide the decisions of history.

In the midst of these political anxieties there was a private grief, arising out of the sundering of attachments consequent upon the unnatural state of parties, that preyed severely on the sensitive mind of Lord Temple. This painful matter forms the subject of a letter from Lord Temple to his brother, Mr. Thomas Grenville, which has not been inserted in its chronological place, as it would have interrupted the sequence of the preceding correspondence. The tender and affectionate feelings hitherto subsisting unimpaired between the brothers, who, in addition to the rest of their noble qualities, were distinguished beyond most men by their domestic virtues, had been interrupted by one of those fatal divisions in public life, which, during this memorable crisis, separated the closest friends.

The particular occasion which now for the first time produced disunion between Lord Temple and his brother, is not expressly stated in the letter; but it may be surmised from the correspondence which took place early in the preceding year between Mr. Thomas Grenville and Mr. Fox, when the former was employed upon the American negotiation in Paris. Mr. Thomas Grenville, devoting himself to the interests of Mr. Fox, still preserved his allegiance to him under the arrangements of the Coalition Administration; and, from certain expressions in this letter, it would appear that he had ventured to make some overture to Lord Temple, with a view to induce him to reconsider the line of action he had resolved upon, if indeed it did not amount to the distinct proposal of an office under the new Ministry. The exact nature of that offer is veiled under the language of a poignant and bitter regret, which seeks to avoid details the writer was most unwilling to enter into; but it is sufficiently explicit as to the "new connection" Mr. Thomas Grenville had formed, in an opposite direction to that which Lord Temple's devotion to the principles they held in common had led him to embrace. The sensibility manifested by Lord Temple in reference to this unhappy affair, shows that his heart was as impressionable as his judgment was clear and firm.

LORD TEMPLE TO MR. THOMAS GRENVILLE.

Phœnix Lodge, May 9th, 1783.

Dear Brother,

Your letter, which mentions one written some time since, came yesterday to my hands; and upon the same day came a monthly account from Coutts, by which I see that, by Welles's neglect, and by the delay of my stewards, I had unknowingly drawn for the expenses of my departure beyond my state; but as it is proper that your wants should be supplied, I have writ to Frogatt, to order him to let you have some £500 from some money of mine in his hands; and I will let you have more as soon as I can.

The remainder of your letter gives me, indeed, the most sensible concern, for it shows me that line broken, which I was still in hopes was only strained; for this is the only interpretation which I can put upon that offer, which (from the most honourable motives) you have made to me; and the only wish which I can now form, is that you may never reflect for whom, and for what, you have sacrificed that political and intimate connexion, which nature had pointed out, and which till this moment I had not despaired of. One opportunity presented itself in which you could have done me essential service: I never can regret the eagerness with which I entreated from you that proof of affection, because I still feel how much I would have sacrificed, to have preserved our bond inviolate; that, with many other prospects, is now gone, and I am to feel that I have lost that confidence, that good-will and attachment which you have given to a friendship, which, for obvious reasons, I must ever regret. I do not speak this in resentment and reproach, my feelings are far above them, but in sober and earnest grief of mind. I must remind you that no personal friendship, no party or political consideration, could have guided the steps which I took in June last; to which, in terms the most decisive, you marked your line of separation. The same public principles (for with no one person in England have I correspondence) have decided me in the present moment, and in neither path have we met; and parting upon such a question as that of the present system (upon which I feel everything as a public man, and as a private man have the sensations which naturally result from personal insult), I fear that we have (at least for some time) little chance of seeing those affections vibrate in unison which I feel so strongly strained. Once more let me entreat you (for I am not ashamed to entreat) to reconsider this well. If your new connexion replaces to you that affectionate interest which from my childhood I have borne to you; if your line holds out to you that honourable satisfaction, which I trust you would not have lost by a cordial union of objects and dispositions with me, I fear that I speak in vain; but if you give that play to your reason, to your affection, and to every feeling which Providence has given, as the cement of the tenderest and most intimate connexions, remember that in offering to you my heart, I mean to offer to you everything which the truest love can give you, but what must and can depend only on the closest union. Weigh this well, and may every good angel guide your decision. Adieu.

Lord Temple must have been the more distressed by the course his brother had taken on this occasion, from the evidences he received of the sanction of other friends, who were governed in their own conduct by his example. These proofs of attachment and approval, while they afforded the most gratifying testimony to the rectitude of his views, touched him deeply in contrast with the alienation of his brother.

Only a few days before he wrote this letter to Mr. Thomas Grenville, we find Lord Bulkeley addressing him in the following terms, alluding to the communication in which Lord Temple had informed him of his determination to resign. "I had great pleasure," observes the writer, "in receiving your last very kind letter, and in learning from yourself the line you meant to take at a critical conjuncture like the present, when the candidates for honour and principle are so reduced in number, that those who forego great situations to bring them forward again, have every title to confidence and support, and deserve every honest and independent encouragement. You may naturally suppose I have not been without solicitations from the Coalition Government; I have given but one answer, which was that I shall certainly act with you, and more especially as your conduct in resigning gave me, if possible, a greater opinion of and veneration for your character than I could by any means express."

Such testimonies were consolatory in the difficult position in which Lord Temple was placed; but, instead of alleviating the pain he felt at his separation from his brother in public life, they embittered it by the conviction that one whom he loved so sincerely should have adopted a line of action which he in his conscience believed to be erroneous.

It will be observed that in writing to Mr. Thomas Grenville, Lord Temple alludes to a former letter, which evidently had not reached its destination. The circumstance would be unimportant in itself, were there not reason to believe that it formed part of a regular system of espionnage to which the whole of Lord Temple's correspondence was subjected. The establishment of such an inquisition into the letters of so high a functionary as the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland seems incredible, and nothing short of the most decisive proofs of the fact could justify even a suspicion of its existence. But there are passages in these letters which leave no doubt whatever that Lord Temple's correspondence, both private and public, was inspected in London while he yet held office in Ireland, and that the same course continued to be carried on after he returned to England. Nor was the espionnage limited to mere perusal, frequent allusions to miscarriages leading to the inference that his letters were sometimes suppressed altogether.

There are no means of determining with whom this system originated. All that appears to be certain is, that it was practised during the period of the Shelburne Cabinet, and followed up under the Coalition; and that after it had been detected, no secret was made about it, either by Lord Temple or his intimate correspondents.

Writing to Colonel Dundas, Lord Temple says, apparently under the apprehension that his letter would be read by others, "Obvious circumstances will prevent my going into the discussion of details in a post letter." And to a friend in Ireland, he speaks still more explicitly: "As almost every letter," he observes, "received or written by me is opened, it is possible that this may undergo that operation in London; and if so, they will learn the real regard I bear to you." Mr. Cuff, writing to Lord Temple, from Dublin, in the November of this year, declares that he expects nothing less than that his letter will be opened and read. The passage is too remarkable to be omitted.

I should not now trouble your Lordship with a letter, but that I find to a certainty, that letters to and from your Lordship are not only opened and read, but many of them are stopped. If this should happen to get into your Lordship's hands, you will see, by what I have written on the outside of it, that I am willing to compromise with those honourable gentlemen who open and read your letters, and that I have no objections to their opening and reading, provided they will afterwards forward them to you.

Your Lordship mentions a letter you wrote to me about three or four weeks since, relative to the Genevois and their houses. I have never received a letter from your Lordship since you left Ireland, except one dated the 20th of July, and your last of the 23rd of October. I had the honour to write to your Lordship about the 20th or 25th of September, thanking you for your letter of the 20th of July, and telling you (what I can say with truth) that I prize it more than all my other possessions upon earth. I did not know, when I wrote that letter, that it would be opened and read, else I should have declared my sentiments more freely; but as I am almost certain that this one will be opened, I shall be more full.

Know all men, therefore, by these presents, openers of letters, and others, that I am more attached to your Lordship than to all the rest of the world; not because you gave me a place of £400 a year at the Barrack Board, but because I think you have more sense, honour, and firmness, than all the Viceroys I have ever seen in Ireland put together.

A month elapsed before Lord Temple answered this letter, unwilling to trust his reply to the post, and waiting all that time for an opportunity to send it by a "safe hand." His explanation of the delay furnishes additional proof of the inquisition to which his correspondence was exposed.

I should long since (he observes) have acknowledged your very kind letter to me, if I had not delayed it partly with the inclination of sending you an answer by a safe hand, and partly from the exceeding anxious state of public business, which has wholly engrossed my attention. It appears from your state[ment] of the letters which you have received, that one, written about the beginning of October, never reached you.

That Lord Temple's letters should have been secretly inspected by a hostile Administration is intelligible, if we can admit such a proceeding to be consistent with the honour of public men or reconcilable with the obligations of the public service; but it is impossible to comprehend upon what ground of expediency or from what motives of jealousy or distrust, so flagrant a breach of confidence was committed towards him by the subordinates (for it is difficult to believe it could have been officially sanctioned by Ministers themselves) of a Cabinet under which he held so responsible a situation as that of the Vice-royalty of Ireland. The fact, nevertheless, admits of no doubt, and throws a strong light on the sinister means which were adopted in those days for the "management" of the executive.

The share which Lord Temple took in public affairs after his return from Ireland, and during the existence of the Coalition, naturally enough made him a special object of suspicion and resentment to the Cabinet. We find him, in his letter to Mr. Cuff, stating that his attention has been wholly engrossed by the anxious state of public business, and the memoirs of the period show in the results how powerfully he contributed to the overthrow of that ministerial combination, which he had denounced as unnatural and infamous. But the details of his services to the King throughout this harassing crisis have never found their way into history; nor is it now possible, from their secret and confidential nature, to trace them in full. The disclosures, however, which may be gleaned from the few letters that passed to and from Lord Temple at this period, sufficiently prove that the King trusted all along to his counsel and support, and acted altogether on his advice. There was so much hazard in committing opinions and suggestions to so unsafe a medium as that of correspondence, that we can look but for scanty revelations in the papers which have been preserved. It appears that Lord Temple conducted his proceedings in reference to the struggle between the King and his Ministers chiefly by means of personal interviews and detached memoranda of his views, intended only to assist the memory in conversation, and torn up as soon as used. Lord Thurlow was sometimes employed by his Majesty as an agent on these occasions, and through him, probably to avert suspicion from the real quarter on which his Majesty relied, the intercourse with Lord Temple and his friends was occasionally carried on.

From the commencement to the close of the brief tenure of the Coalition, his Majesty held aloof from his Ministers; and it was not till the opening of the Session, on the 11th of November, that an opportunity was presented for acting effectively upon his determination to get rid of them as soon as he could. During the interval that had elapsed since the prorogation of Parliament in the preceding July, they prepared their measures; but, from the want of co-operation and confidence on the part of the Sovereign, the precise character of their policy was a matter of speculation outside the Cabinet. His Majesty either did not, or would not, know the course they intended to pursue; and it is evident, from subsequent circumstances, that the plan of operations for relieving him of their presence was kept in suspense, waiting upon events, up to the moment when they brought forward their famous India Bill. The following letter, written a few days before the opening of Parliament, shows how little was known at that moment of the views of Ministers, and enables us to perceive that, although Lord Temple was in frequent communication with the King, he had not yet decided upon the line of conduct to be adopted. The state of affairs implied in the letter is curious enough; exhibiting the Sovereign, on the one side, taking secret counsel of the Opposition, and the Ministry, on the other, coming down to Parliament with measures which they were well aware His Majesty was eagerly watching for a constitutional excuse to thwart and defeat.

LORD TEMPLE TO LORD MORNINGTON.

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.

LORD TEMPLE TO MR. PITT.

Stowe, Dec. 29th, Half-past One.

Dear Sir,

I am sorry that you should have had the trouble of acknowledging at so late a period a letter which was indeed very interesting to me, but to which I have not even expected any answer for the last eight weeks; and I perfectly agree with you, "that it would be of little use to enter in[to] particulars" respecting the considerations so immediately affecting my credit, a[nd?] honour, which we certainly view so differently. If any communication had been wished for from me upon these points, upon which it was known by Mr. Grenville and by you that I was not indifferent, I should have thought it my duty of friendship to have stated my reasons for being confident that the new Irish arrangements cannot be useful, upon the same principles as have been thought (by you) sufficient to bury former distinctions of party in this country: I have already stated to you my reasons for considering the recal of Mr. Ponsonby and of his friends to power and confidence in Ireland as a most dangerous measure, and as a departure from a system to which His Majesty's Government was pledged, not only with your approbation, but with your strong and decided opinion. I have likewise stated the reasons why I consider such a measure, unaccompanied with any mark to me of the King's approbation of my conduct, as the strongest disavowal of my Government in Ireland, and (not to use harsh expressions) as the most personal offence to me. In that point of view I know that it has been almost universally considered in Ireland; because the natural intemperance of those to whom I feel myself sacrificed has not been controlled by any proof of the interest which it had been supposed you would have felt naturally in whatever so nearly concerned me. And with these impressions, I felt strongly the kindness of my brother, Mr. Grenville, who endeavoured to calm those feelings, and to suggest various marks of favour (if you should approve them) which did not appear to him precluded by any difficulties of which he was aware.

And by that kindness I was induced to acquiesce in his wish to be permitted to open to you an idea which I find that Mr. Grenville and you consider (in part of it) as strongly objectionable, as hazardous to Government, and as unwise on my part. As I cannot think of accepting the peerage for my second son under such circumstances, I have only to express my regrets that the idea ever has been opened to you. I was never very particularly attached to it, and certainly feel the full force of your arguments against it; but I likewise feel as fully that the arrangements which you have taken, with your eyes open to the consequences (as far as I am concerned in the question), leave me without alternative. I need not add that the consequences of this must be most painful to me from reflections embittered by the warm affection I bore to those who view all this so differently from me.

I have, from attention to you, sent back your messenger immediately. I have, therefore, hardly had time to consider the expressions of this letter. I shall, therefore, thank you if (notwithstanding your press of business) you will, from recollection of former habits, be kind enough to give me one line, to tell me whether I have made myself understood or not; and you will likewise think it necessary to give me some answer respecting your engagement to Mr. Gamon, in August last, to include him in the first list of Baronets. If you wish for a copy of your letter on that subject, you shall have it, but an immediate explanation to him from you, as well as me, is absolutely necessary.

I am, with very sincere regrets, and with the deepest sensations of pain for what has passed, and for what is yet to come,

Dear Sir, Your very obedient and humble servant, N. T.