1807. object, and the object of those, who acted with him, was to knit together all classes of his Majesty's subjects in that country by a mild and conciliatory government. He entertained hopes, that such a system would supersede the necessity of agitating the question, particularly when it was known there were objections to it in a certain quarter, that it would be strongly opposed in Parliament, and that there was not any prospect of success for a considerable time. Accordingly they took mea sures to prevent the revival of the question, and they succeeded last year. Some symptoms, however, of that disturbed state, which in his opinion could be best prevented by that measure, broke out. To the honor of the noble Duke, who represented his Majesty, they were composed, not by having recourse to harsh measures, but by civil justice alone. The attention of ministers was soon after called to the situation of Ireland, by the representation of those, who had the best means of ascertaining the state of the public mind in that country.

Lord Gien

ville conti

aued.

If the Irish law were adopted, he meant the law of 1793, would not the English Dissenter have a right to say, "Upon what principle of justice do (C you exclude me, while you are a friend to the "Catholic?" For his part he was so much a friend to both, that he would have no distinction made, as far as regarded naval or military employment. It was therefore their opinion, that if any bill were brought forward, it should be so framed, as to include persons of all religious persuasions;

and such was the opinion, that he, for one, thought 1807. it necessary to submit the measure to his Sove

reign. In so doing, the most scrupulous care had

been observed. The draft of the dispatch to the Lord Lieutenant, relative to the communications, which he was to have with the Catholics, was submitted to his Majesty, and met with his approbation. This draft recited, that by an act of the Irish Parliament, the army and navy were laid open to the people of that country, and did then propose, that it should be in his Majesty's power to give commissions, subject to a certain oath. They pointed out the difference between the law of 1793, and that, which they meant to propose; and having done that, they conceived, that they had done all, that was necessary. After some objections his Majesty gave his consent, that the measure should be proposed, and authority was given to the Lord Lieutenant to communicate, by his Secretary, to the heads of the Catholics, that the army and navy should be opened to them. In that interview, it was asked. Whether it were intended, that the restriction respecting generals on the staff should be done away? And it was answered, in the words of the dispatch, that it was. The Lord Lieutenant's dispatch, stating these circumstances, was sent to his Majesty for his perusal, and returned without any remark. The draft of another dispatch, in answer to this, was also sent to the King, and returned, without comment or observation of any kind. What were they to conclude from this, but that his Majesty approved of those dispatches?

1807.

Resolution to withdraw the bill.

Was it possible to do more for the purpose of as-, certaining his opinion? What must be their feelings then, when they saw libels circulated, in which it was asserted, that they had deluded their Sovereign? The measure was proposed by Lord Howick, a man of as high and punctilious honor as ever lived, and he would not have done so, if he had not conceived, that he had full authority to do it. That noble person came from the conference with a perfect conviction, that he had permission to propose it. He was at the very time waiting at the door to be admitted, and Lord Howick told him distinctly as he came out, that he had authority to propose the measure to Parliament. He had an interview with the King immediately after, at which his Majesty did not mention one word upon the subject; nor, indeed, was there a word said to his Majesty about it. He would ask their Lordships. Whether the circumstances he mentioned did not authorize the conclusion he had drawn from them? The business was accordingly opened by Lord Howick on Wednesday the 4th of March; and it was not until the 11th, that he understood some misconception existed. On that day he learned they had been mistaken, and that his Majesty's consent would be withheld. Nothing more passed than expressions of disapprobation on one side, and of concern on the other.

Much discussion took place on the next day among those, who were friendly to the bill. They found they had proposed a measure not agreeable to his Majesty, and they came to a resolution,

for which he did not know they were perfectly ex- 1807. cusable, to withdraw parts of the bill, and to submit it with modifications. They proposed to his Majesty to be allowed to modify the bill to that of 1793: a proposal, which was received with gracious condescension. Upon reflection, they found, that the difficulty respecting the Dissenters was insurmountable; and accordingly they stated, in writing, that as they could not alter the bill as they wished, they requested, that they might be permitted to drop it altogether. Perhaps their Lordships would think they had gone too far in consenting to drop a measure, which they conceived necessary for the safety of the Empire. His answer was they wished to accommodate their conduct to the feelings of his Majesty. The measure, however, was before Parliament, where it received the warm approbation of many persons, and it was out of their power to stop the discussion. It was not to be expected, that it would be allowed to drop without discussion, and without ministers being called upon to account for their conduct. Had they allowed the bill to drop, still the measure would come before Parliament in another shape, and they would be obliged to explain. themselves, and state why the same conciliating policy, which they recommended out of office, was not followed, when they were in. They therefore felt it to be indispensably necessary (he would use the very words they employed) humbly to submit to his Majesty a representation as to their future conduct. They did not state, that they

1307.

tional

manded.

must reserve to themselves the liberty of submitting to his Majesty such measures, as they thought necessary with respect to the Catholics, but of submitting them to his Majesty for his decision. They also reserved the privilege of explaining themselves, whenever this subject should be brought before Parliament. The answer was a gracious acceptance of what they had proposed, accompanied with an expression of regret, that any necessity should arise for avowing such opinions to Parlia

ment.

Unconstitu- To their utter astonishment, however, they were pledge de- soon after called upon to give a written pledge, that no further concession to the Catholics should be proposed. A more painful condition could not have been imposed upon any set of men. What would be their situation, if they were to be bounden by their oaths, and fettered at the same time by a written engagement? Were they to withhold that advice, which they might deem necessary for the safety, nay the very existence of the empire? What would be the effect upon the constitution? Could it exist, if such a principle were recognized, as that ministers were acting upon a written pledge of the nature he had stated? Suppose the existence of Ireland at stake, and ministers were called upon to account for their conduct, was he to justify himself by saying, "Oh! that corner was

torn out of the map of the Empire, which was "committed to my keeping." Would not the recognition of such a principle strike at the very root of the constitution, overturn the maxim, “That