Source.—Diary of Lord Colchester, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 92.

[Feb.] 28th.—Lord Hawkesbury called on the Catholic clauses in the Mutiny Bill, to express his alarms, and those of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Perceval and Sir William Scott, about the apprehended extension of the Irish law of 1793, by now enabling Catholics to be Generals on the Staff.

Sunday, March 1st.—Lord Sidmouth called. He desired to deposit with me his determination not to agree to granting the Catholics liberty to hold staff commissions. The King had with difficulty been persuaded by Lord Sidmouth to consent even to extend the Irish Act of 1793 to Catholic officers in the army, when coming to England; but had acceded to it at last, as a strict consequence of the Union; the Irish law then in force being virtually adopted for England. Lord Howick admitted that in the House of Commons he had given no other intimation of his notice. The Duke of Bedford and the Irish Government had understood the same things, and explained the concession on this ground to be only to the Catholics in Dublin. That it was now proposed, because the minute of Cabinet had been worded generally, that it should be carried into effect in its largest sense; and the King was again to be asked for his consent. The Cabinet were about to meet this day upon that express topic.

2nd.—Lord Sidmouth called. The Cabinet had parted yesterday upon a 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.

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]