Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

1e mai ut by any original view of the subject 372 I Vam I cannot speak too highly, I te marin, as in every other, acted from e I share his duty. That letter, I «mest on a mac by any original view taken am considerations which were sugms country without my knowledge feng rather the political state of and I thought the view taken in Hansard, xxiv. p. 1308.)

Dri-Lieutenant's letter which created Estinctly stated by my father to one, and that he says nothing icial despatch" as the Reviewer mend the omission from the Bill nees. Nor is there the slightest testaten to this effect in the subsequent me entrary, it was expressly affirmed

[ocr errors][merged small]

Varncliffe moved in the House of Lords a

any communication received from the Lord e grounds of his having altered the opinion er of the 18th of April last to Viscount Me r the bill for the suppression of disturbance s reported that Lord Melbourne then Prime f opposing the motion, on grounds already antiamely, that this was a private communication, for by the House. It was a confidential letter, Ter. with whom the Lord Lieutenant held no eĒTA e Secretary for the Home Department, with whm sch correspondence, and no reason had been stated the Government to consent to so great a violation of sed, or to adopt a course entry new and unprece ch would be to viclate the server if private and ence, to shackle and impair the security of all fatare misters, and to set a present ineunten ent in the highest evice. These were this in vich he felt bound - of the document

now taken in e

1g could be more a

e production of this letter wo

Esard, vol. xxv. p. 111.

[ocr errors]

ng the address on these grounds 21 322

was in his possession: nocod

ང ཀྱང 1:|:|: ཀུ

and he could not consent to give TERESITTI 38 micie Marquis the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland smun PNG.

the House of Lords in this form, and it was read a second time on the 4th. On these occasions my father expressed in the strongest manner his conviction of the necessity of renewing the Act, and of retaining in it the clauses directed against the abuse of the power of holding public meetings, without which he said he would not have proposed the Bill at all (Hansard, vol. lxxiv. p. 1127-8). In saying so he believed (as he had a right to do from what had passed) that he was declaring views which had in the end received the assent of the whole Cabinet, whatever might at one time have been the opinion of some of them. That assent had undoubtedly been given to the measure, though not without difficulty, for a strong difference of opinion as to the propriety of retaining the clauses respecting public meetings had been created in the Cabinet by the letter received from Lord Wellesley on the 23rd of June. This had become known to Mr. O'Connell, and he availed himself of his knowledge to bring the fact before the House of Commons in a manner which eventually made it impossible for the Government to proceed with the Bill in the form in which it had been introduced into the House of Lords.

'Such were the real facts with respect to the bringing forward of the Bill for renewing the Coercion Act according to statements publicly made at the time and never disputed. There can be no need for pointing out how widely they differ from the account of them given in the Review. Nor is the account it gives of the conduct and motives of those who were concerned in this affair, and of the communications that passed between them, less completely erroneous. I will abstain however from entering into the details which would be necessary in order to expose the mistakes I allude to, but I cannot leave the subject without affirming that my father's resignation was not brought about in the manner alleged by the Review. Its immediate cause was no doubt the resignation of Lord Althorp, who felt that after the disclosures in the House of Commons, it was impossible for him to continue to hold office, if the Bill were to be proceeded with in the form in which it had been brought into the House of Lords. But from the course he took after my father's retirement it must be inferred that if Lord Althorp had been asked to withdraw his resignation on the understanding that the Bill should be modified, he would not have refused to do so, and any change in the administration might have been averted. This, however, was not proposed by my father, who was of opinion that in the circumstances in which he was placed his own resignation was necessary. It was rendered so, in the first place, by the fact (on which he laid most stress in the House of Lords) that having brought in the Bill with the concurrence of the whole Cabinet, and of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, he suddenly found himself deprived of the power of carrying the measure so introduced, and which he had just publicly declared to be in his opinion necessary to secure the public peace in Ireland, by the secession of a member of the Government whose services were indispensable for its continuance. With his high standard of the duties of a Minister this alone would have made it difficult for him to continue at the head of the Government, but the manner in which he had been brought into this diffi

letter appeared to be produced not by any original view of the subject taken by that illustrious person, of whom I cannot speak too highly, and who in this part of the transaction, as in every other, acted from the most conscientious desire to discharge his duty. That letter, I say, appeared to be produced not so much by any original view taken of the state of Ireland as by certain considerations which were suggested to the Lord-Lieutenant from this country without my knowledge or concurrence; considerations affecting rather the political state of parties in this country than of Ireland. I thought the view taken in that letter was completely erroneous." (Hansard, xxiv. p. 1308.)

'It will be observed that the Lord-Lieutenant's letter which created the division in the Cabinet is here distinctly stated by my father to have been a "private and confidential" one, and that he says nothing of any such "able and important official despatch" as the Reviewer alleges to have been written to recommend the omission from the Bill of the clauses relating to public meetings. Nor is there the slightest allusion to the existence of a despatch to this effect in the subsequent discussions that took place; on the contrary, it was expressly affirmed that there was no such despatch.*

'After having described the letter he had received on the 23rd of June my father proceeded to state that it led to some further correspondence with Lord Wellesley on the subject, and to discussions in the Cabinet which ended in his bringing forward, with the concurrence of the Lord-Lieutenant and of the whole Cabinet, the Bill for renewing the Coercion Act without any alteration except the omission of the Court Martial clauses. On the 1st of July the Bill was brought into

646

666

6.66

[ocr errors]

On the 18th of July, Lord Wharncliffe moved in the House of Lords an Address to the Crown for " a copy of any communication received from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, stating the grounds of his having altered the opinion expressed in his Excellency's letter of the 18th of April last to Viscount Melbourne, in favour of the renewal of the bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland." Whereupon it is reported that Lord Melbourne (then Prime Minister) rose for the purpose of opposing the motion, on grounds already anticipated by the noble baron: namely, that this was a private communication, which could not fairly be called for by the House. It was a confidential letter, addressed to the Prime Minister, with whom the Lord Lieutenant held no official correspondence, and not to the Secretary for the Home Department, with whom it was usual for him to have such correspondence, and no reason had been stated to induce the House or the Government to consent to so great a violation of principle as was now proposed, or to adopt a course entirely new and unprece dented; the effect of which would be to violate the secrecy of private and confidential correspondence, to shackle and impair the security of all future communications with ministers, and to set a precedent inconvenient in the highest 'degree to the public service. These were the grounds on which he felt bound 'to oppose the production of the document in question. Considering the course the Government had now taken in reference to the Coercion Bill, he frankly admitted that nothing could be more advantageous to himself and the Govern ment than the production of this letter, which would completely justify their 'conduct.' (Hansard, vol. xxv. p. 111.) My father supported Lord Melbourne in resisting the address on these grounds, and said, 'This was entirely a private letter, it was in his possession; nobody had a right to require its production; and he could not consent to give it up without the sanction of the noble Marquis the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.' The motion was withdrawn.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the House of Lords in this form, and it was read a second time on the 4th. On these occasions my father expressed in the strongest manner his conviction of the necessity of renewing the Act, and of retaining in it the clauses directed against the abuse of the power of holding public meetings, without which he said he would not have proposed the Bill at all (Hansard, vol. lxxiv. p. 1127-8). In saying so he believed (as he had a right to do from what had passed) that he was declaring views which had in the end received the assent of the whole Cabinet, whatever might at one time have been the opinion of some of them. That assent had undoubtedly been given to the measure, though not without difficulty, for a strong difference of opinion as to the propriety of retaining the clauses respecting public meetings had been created in the Cabinet by the letter received from Lord Wellesley on the 23rd of June. This had become known to Mr. O'Connell, and he availed himself of his knowledge to bring the fact before the House of Commons in a manner which eventually made it impossible for the Government to proceed with the Bill in the form in which it had been introduced into the House of Lords.

'Such were the real facts with respect to the bringing forward of the Bill for renewing the Coercion Act according to statements publicly made at the time and never disputed. There can be no need for pointing out how widely they differ from the account of them given in the Review. Nor is the account it gives of the conduct and motives of those who were concerned in this affair, and of the communications that passed between them, less completely erroneous. I will abstain however from entering into the details which would be necessary in order to expose the mistakes I allude to, but I cannot leave the subject without affirming that my father's resignation was not brought about in the manner alleged by the Review. Its immediate cause was no doubt the resignation of Lord Althorp, who felt that after the disclosures in the House of Commons, it was impossible for him to continue to hold office, if the Bill were to be proceeded with in the form in which it had been brought into the House of Lords. But from the course he took after my father's retirement it must be inferred that if Lord Althorp had been asked to withdraw his resignation on the understanding that the Bill should be modified, he would not have refused to do so, and any change in the administration might have been averted. This, however, was not proposed by my father, who was of opinion that in the circumstances in which he was placed his own resignation was necessary. It was rendered so, in the first place, by the fact (on which he laid most stress in the House of Lords) that having brought in the Bill with the concurrence of the whole Cabinet, and of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, he suddenly found himself deprived of the power of carrying the measure so introduced, and which he had just publicly declared to be in his opinion necessary to secure the public peace in Ireland, by the secession of a member of the Government whose services were indispensable for its continuance. With his high standard of the duties of a Minister this alone would have made it difficult for him to continue at the head of the Government, but the manner in which he had been brought into this diffi

[ocr errors]

culty had perhaps even more influence in leading him to regard his position as no longer tenable. From the full account he gave me at the time of the motives on which he acted, it would be in my power to show how much this consideration weighed with him. But he only distantly alluded to it in explaining his resignation in the House of Lords, and expressly said that he would not state more than was 'absolutely indispensable." His generous desire to avoid saying anything which might be painful or injurious to others, even at the risk of leaving his own vindication less complete than it might have been, was one of his motives for the reserve he maintained; and though this reason for it has lost much of its weight from the lapse of time, I still think it right not to depart from it farther than is required, in order to correct the most material of the erroneous statements that have been made. I am faithfully yours,

'H. Reeve, Esq.'

[ocr errors]

We think it due to Lord Grey to publish this communication, and we do so the more willingly as it contains some additional particulars of historical interest; but (with one trifling exception to which we shall presently allude) we do not admit that he has made out his charge of inaccuracy against the contemporary statements of Lord Broughton, and we entirely repudiate his allegation that these statements are injurious to his father or to himself.' On these points our readers will judge for themselves. We shall endeavour to confine our

reply within the shortest possible limits.

It is admitted on all hands that however resolved Lord Grey may have been to create peers, if necessary, to carry the second Reform Bill, he was anxious to delay the creation as long as possible. He felt, to use his own words, 'a repugnance, amounting to aversion, to 'such a measure.' That being the fact, which was known to all his friends, various motives were imputed to him. The delay might arise from irresolution or from a wise policy. The present Lord Grey admits that there was an almost unanimous opinion among my father's 'most trusted friends that he was deferring the creation of peers too 'long.' That is in other words precisely what Lord Broughton himself says. What may have been passing in the secret thoughts of the Prime Minister, he certainly did not know. Earl Grey's views are now made clear by the publication of his correspondence with the king, and they are fully set forth in his letter to Lord Althorp of the 11th March, 1834. But it would be easy to produce a vast amount of contemporary evidence to show that great doubt prevailed amongst many of his nearest friends and connexions, at the time, on the subject, and that his own resolutions fluctuated, as was natural on so difficult a question.

With regard to the conversation with Lord Howick, it is of course possible that his Lordship may have failed to convey accurately what he meant to say to Sir John Hobhouse, or that Sir John Hobhouse may have misunderstood him, but the record of the conversation was

« VorigeDoorgaan »