BOOK S.
LORD HOLLAND'S MEMOIRS OF THE WHIG riiirin* THE public has a right to expect from the memoirs of men who have themselves played a great part in the history. of the country, or who have been closely connected with distinguished statesmen, either important facts helping to clear up and fully explain politi- cal events over which personal regard has thrown a temporary mystery, or such observations of the characters of leading actors in great political events as the general public cannot by any possi- bility form for themselves from the guarded explanations pre- sented during the lives of those actors. We have already recorded our opinion, confirmed by a concurrent testimony of the press, that the late Lord Holland had very little to communicate on either of these points. However rich, according to the evidence of his friends, his social conversation may have been in personal reminis- cences, in anecdote and bon-mot, the fluency and productiveness of his mind seem to have been paralyzed when he took pen in hand to give to his knowledge of contemporary events and contemporary men a more permanent and serious form. The kindly countenance, the winning smile, the courteous and high-bred manner, the grace and splendour of Holland House, are not transferred, are not transfer- able, to the pages of the diary in which he records his impression of the political acts in which he took part, or of which he learns the de- tails from those who did take part in them. And to his portrait.. painting, besides the objection that it has no artistic force, we must object that it abounds in the application of general maxims about characters, that are ill-considered and often contradict each other. The whole value that can be attached to his Lordship's memorials would arise from their informing us of facts of which we were be- fore ignorant. This, unfortunately, is a merit of which the late date of their publication to a great degree deprives them, and which could never have attached to them in any very high degree, from Lord Holland's indolence or his incapacity for minute observa- tion. The period mainly touched in the present volume is the few months during which the Grenville Ministry held office after the death of Mr. Fox. The volume indeed embraces in its remarks from September 1805 to the close of 1808, but it is principally occupied with the six months extending from the death of Charles Fox to the dismissal of the Grenville Government, in March 1807. The additional information supplied towards a full history of those six months is very scanty. Our compiled histories of the period would gain little in the way either of correction or of completion by Lord Holland's revelations. Nor will our previous estimate of the principal actors during that period be appreciably altered. We make these remarks simply to characterize the book, and to distinguish it from works of a somewhat similar form, which have the merit of enabling us to understand history better, though their writers may have been no wiser nor abler men than Lord Holland. But Lord Holland does not record his impressions of events day by day ; he trusts to his memory, and reduces them into a regular narrative. We are spared much idle matter, much wearisome repetition, in this way ; but we lose the personal traits, the reflec- tions of the transient passions and opinions of the times, which give a sort of value to the journals of men whose gossip even, from their position, is of great historical events. Of the three military, expeditions devised by the Grenville Cabi- net, we learn absolutely nothing that was not amply known be- fore from the explanations given in Parliament, unless it be the surmise of Lord Holland that Mr. Windham appointed General Whitelock to command the unfortunate South American force from a desire to get rid of him as Inspector-General at home, in which capacity he did not approve the War Minister's new plans for en- listment. Nor is any explanation attempted of what was the great error of the Grenville Government, the omission to support Russia in the spring of 1807 before the battle of Friedland,—an error which unquestionably led to the treaty of Tilsit, both by allowing Russia to be defeated and by exasperating the Emperor Alexander with England. The English Ambassador at St. Peters- burg repeatedly and emphatically warned his Government of what would be the consequence of this remissness, but without effect. Who mainly inspired the foreign councils of the Government with this cautious spirit? Was Lord Howick alone responsible, or con- jointly with Mr. Windham? Did the Cabinet ever once consider the question, or leave it to the special department? Surely a po- licy which led to Friedland, to Tilsit, to the Continental block- ade, and in fact to the whole after issue of that terrible struggle, deserved discussion in a book professing to be the me- Moira of the party which instituted the policy. Then again, after the Grenville Ministry were dismissed, and Mr. Canning found himself compelled to resort to that bold stroke of seizing the • Memoirs of the Whig Party during My Time. By Henry Richard Lord Holland. Edited by his Son, Henry Edward Lord Holland. Volume II. Published by Long- man and Co. Danish fleet, it is right and natural enough that Lord Holland should record the opinions of his party at the time, that no justi- fication existed for such a measure. Many of Mr. Canning's own friends, no doubt, felt this as strongly as the party in opposition. But as Lord Holland has added notes to other parts of has work, dating in many cases later than 1830, he might, we think, have qualified the opinion in the text to the effect that no secret articles injurious to England were added to the treaty of Tilsit, by a note acknowledging that the publication of Fouche's Memoirs in 1824 had completely overthrown this supposition and as completely jus- tified Canning. We know now from Lord Malmesbury's diaries, that the Prince Regent of Portugal furnished positive information to the Prince Regent of England, of the intention of Napoleon to use the Danish and Portuguese fleets to invade England, and that upon this information principally the bold resolution of the Duke of Portland's Ministry was taken. But the other fact furnished by Fondle must have been known to Lord Holland when revising these memoirs ; yet the original Whig insinuations against Can- ning stand, as if nothing had been known about the matter. We do not attribute this to malevolence, but to simple careless indo- lence and a slight regard for historic accuracy. The matter most fully discussed by Lord Holland in this volume is the dismissal of the Grenville Ministry. His Lordship gives his narrative of the transaction in the text, and supplies in an ap- pendix of fifty pages the documents connected with it. The question was a proposal of the Government to extend to the Ro- man Catholics throughout the kingdom the benefits of a measure
i
passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793, which allowed them to hold all military commissions except staff appointments. Of course the original measure only conferred that right in Ireland. It is evident that in the first instance the Government had not con- sidered the exception, and that the King's reluctant consent to the introduction of the measure was obtained solely by the repre- sentation that it was intended simply to extend to England the rights that the Catholics had obtained in Ireland. Now, Lord Howick did introduce into the House of Commons a bill which proposed to give Roman Catholics the power of holding any com- mission whatsoever in the army and navy of the United Kingdom. The only matter in dispute is, whether he was authorized by the King so to do. We have read Lord Holland's documents and his arguments with attention, and we derive from their perusal the impression that the point was never clearly brought to the King's notice, though papers were placed before him which ought to have forced it upon his attention. We have to choose, so far as Lord Holland's papers give us any clue, between the alternative of attri- buting the King's omission to notice the point either to his blindness, which placed him at this period entirely. at the mercy of those about him, or to a cunning design of tripping up his Ministers by allowing them irretrievably to commit themselves, and then de- claring his resolute opposition to the scheme. Lord Holland inclines to the latter opinion ; nor does all we know of George the Third prevent us from acquiescing in it. But there are other facts not mentioned by Lord Holland, which do entirely prevent us from this conclusion, and give to the whole transaction a different colour. From Lord Holland's account one would suppose that he was at the time, and remained all his life, ignorant of the con- duct pursued by his colleague Lord Sidmouth during the discus- sions on the question. On reference to Lord Sidmouth's Life, we find that he throughout limited his acquiescence in the mea- sure to an extension of the Irish act, pertinaciously refusing to go a step further ; that he insisted throughout that the King's intention also was so limited ; that he pressed upon the Cabinet the necessity of clearly ascertaining the King's feelings before pro- ceeding, and on being outvoted took an early opportunity of speaking to the King on the subject; and that finally he sent in his resignation rather than consent to the measure as brought in by Lord Howick. All this seems to render it clear that the more liberal portion of the Cabinet either acted with great want of cau- tion, or desired to commit the Government and the King beyond power of retractation : and this they were enabled to do in con- sequence of the King's blindness, without absolute concealment or treachery. They had only to abstain from forcing the point upon the King's attention • and this they did. However cunning may have been mixed with the King's conduct, it is plain that the'lllinistay had themselves to blame for the dilemma in which they were ultimately placed. The exact balance between their want of caution and over-eagerness for their object, and the Kins duplicity, if such it was, it is now impossible to strike. The only man who could enlighten us was the King himself, by his papers; and that is not now probable. But whatever else is mysterious, the most mysterious part of the whole business, to ns, is Lord Holland's utter silence and evident ignorance of Lord Sidmouth's conduct, which would appear to have been in nowise secret or underhand. It implies the strangest relations between the mem- bers of the same Cabinet. In illustration of this point, we will
quote some judicious remarks made by Lord Holland on the mode of conducting Cabinet business.
" When I came into office, I was curious to understand the course of pro- ceeding or intkrior constitution of our Government. It is vague in the ex- treme, and often irregular and inconvenient. The Cabinet, which is legally only a Committee of the Privy Council, appointed by the King on each dis- tinct occasion, has gradually assumed the character and in some measure the reality of a permanent council, through which advice on all matters of great importance is conveyed to the Crown. But though the necessity of a well- concerted or party Government, in a limited monarchy and popular consti- tution, has generally established the wholesome doctrine that each and every member of the Cabinet is in some degree responsible for the measures adopted by the Government, while he is a member of it, yet there are no precise laws nor rules, nor even any well-established or understood usages which mark what measures in each department are or are not to be commu- nicated to the Cabinet. Measures of foreign policy seem indeed more em- phatically designated by the history of the origin of this committee in Charles the Second's time, by usage and by reason, as the objects of their deliberation. Yet there is nothing but private agreement or party feeling generally, or the directions of the King accidentally, which obliges even a Secretary for Foreign Affairs to consult his colleagues on any of the duties of his office before he takes the King's pleasure upon them. In all Adminis- trations, I believe, and in ours I am sure, his despatches, his measures, and even his appointments, were more generally submitted to the judgment of the Cabinet than those in any other department. When a Cabinet is held at a public office, it is generally at the Foreign Office. The acts of that office, however, are not invariably nor necessarily laid before the Cabinet; and the Secretary of State at his own discretion ad- vises and completes many without any such consultation. In the other branches of administration, such as the Treasury, the Home Secretaryship, the Chancery, the Admiralty, the discretion is yet larger as to the matters in their respective departments on which the Ministers take the King's pleasure directly, or previously consult their colleagues before they advise him. Nomination to places is, for obvious reasons, seldom* submitted to the consideration of a Cabinet. Yet by usage, arising out of the necessity of placing a large portion of that species of power in one department, the patronage does not always in practice or substance belong to those officers who are the legal channels, and consequently in a strict constitutional sense the sole legal and ostensible advisers, of the appointment. Thus, for instance, the First Lord of the Treasury actually and constantly takes the King's pleasure on the appointment to many dignities and places, to the war- rant, patent, or instrument for which he neither affixes signature nor seal, but which are conferred by the Great Seal, the Privy Seal, and the Signet. Such an undefined distribution of authority, and the want of a distinct line between the jurisdiction of the Cabinet and of the individual Ministers who compose it, as well as between the jurisdiction of their respective offices, is sometimes convenient to the public service ; inasmuch as the person whose abilities qualify him for the largest share of power may from other circumstances be incapacitated from holding the office which would technically render him responsible for the exercise of it. On the other hand, the looseness of the obligation of referring the measures of each department to the Cabinet, and the undefined limits of the authority of many of the high offices, afford great scope for intrigue and cabal with the Crown. A favourite might by these means contrive insensibly to separate his interests from those of his col- leagues, and at the secret suggestion of a King thwart the measures and defeat the views of a Council which, though not technically, is virtually responsible to the public for the whole conduct of affairs. These remarks are speculations resulting from reflection, not the fruit of experience. No such inconvenience was felt in Lord Grenville's Administration. There did indeed occur one embarrassment from the irregular manner in which, accord- ing to long usage and practice, the correspondence with the Irish Govern- ment had been conducted. The wishes, and even commands of the Govern- ment, had for many years been communicated to the Government of Ireland by private letters from the Secretary of the Home Department to the Lord- Lieutenant or his secretary. We could not, in honour or duty, proceed in discussing our project of a limited Catholic Bill with the Irish Government, much less with the Catholics in Ireland, without bringing the subject in some way before his Majesty's notice. The slovenly and irregular method of transacting business which I have described, prevented its coming, as a matter of course, before his eyes, and consequently compelled us to present it to him in the first instance as a measure of great importance connected with the subject on which his mind was morbidly predisposed to take alarm. I shall have occasion to mention the consequences when I come to relate the transactions which led to the dissolution of our Administration."
Here is one of the few historical pictures we can find in the volume. The occasion is a Cabinet, meeting on the King's first refusal to extend the Irish act of 1793.
" Our Chancellor, Lord Erskine, shone least upon this trying occasion. He talked much nonsense and false religion, declaimed against Papists and Mahometans, and plumed himself on having never supported the pretensions of Roman Catholics. He betrayed ignorance as well as weakness, mistook the policy of the question, confounded the state of the law, and forgot every circumstance that had attended its enactment or its amendments. When the moment of decision approached, he played with pencils and pens, took up books, and pretended even to sleep, with the hope of not being committed in any resolution we might adopt. Lord Howick or myself jogged his elbow and drew his attention to the matter in discussion. Ile confessed afterwards, with a droll simplicity impossible to describe, that he had been strangely affected by the book he had looked into. It happened to be the Life of Eger- ton Lord Ellesmere, who had received the seals at the same age (fifty-seven) as himself, and had held them no less than twenty-seven years! The con- trast of his own prospects and the fate of his more fortunate predecessor had manifestly astonished and overwhelmed him; and no Papist ever called down the vengeance of Heaven on a heretic with more fervour or fury than Lord Erskine at that moment damned the Holy Catholic Church and all who maintained its tenets, Lord Howick was indignant at conduct so uncon- genial with his own generous temper and elevated mind. The chagrin which Lord Erskine would manifestly feel at the loss of office seemed to re- concile Lord Howick to the event ; and every hint that dropped from the other on the propriety of a temporizing policy, made him spurn_more contempt- uously at everything like compliance or submission."
Here is a strange anecdote of Mr. Pitt; of which we shall be curious to have corroboration, or the contrary.
" 8th March 1833.
"Mr. Pitt was, according to all printed and many authentic private ac- counts, born at Hayes in Kent, in.1769. At that time, his father, the great Lord Chatham, was Minister of Foreign Affairs, and conducting a successful war against France. It is impossible that he should have been born in France, and quite notorious to his family, his friends, and many persons older than himself, yet surviving, that he was not. I cannot find and do • It has been much oftener submitted, and hitherto with no bad effect, to Lord Melbourne's Cabinet than to any other of which I have been a member. I write in 1837. But I much question the prudence of such a practice." not believe that he was ever out of England before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Ministry of Lord Shelburne ; whose peace, signed in 1783, he defended in the House of Commons ; and with whom, in consequence of the vote against that peace, he resigned office soon afterwards. Upon the conclusion of that peace and his resignation of office, (and not, I have strong reason to believe, till then_,) he went to France, chiefly for the purpose of learning the language. With that view, he went into pension, or took a lodging, at Rheims. The uncle to Prince Talleyrand was-then Archbishop of Rheims, and living at the Abbaye St. Thierry, at no great distance from the town. Hearing that the son of the celebrated Chatham, and himself a young man of so much promise, and indeed performance, as to have filled the office
i
of Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, was in the neighbourhood, he pressed him to take up his abode at St. Thierry ; and directed his nephew, Prince Talleyrand, then Abbe de Perigord, to assist him in the study of the language, and to do the honours of the country to so distinguished a stranger. Talleyrand did so. Mr. Pitt staid, as far as he recollects, six weeks at St. Thierry. He was attentive to French literature, and ear- nest in his endeavours to return Talleyrand's information or instruc- tions about it, by a corresponding account of the best English writers in prose and verse. He seemed to like literary conversation ; but his progress in speaking French was not great, and his pronunciation of it was, as Talleyrand describes it, very guttural. They lived together for those six weeks ; but, though without any estrangement, dispute, or cause of discontent, did not contract for one another that sort of liking or friendship which might have been expected from men so young, so nearly of an age, and so distinguished for their talents, attainments, and station in their respective countries. Mr. Pitt left Rheims for Paris, or rather for the Court, at the period of the year when the Royal Family were at Fontainebleau ; whither, as Talleyrand distinctly recollects, our Ambassador (he thinks the Duke of Dorset) had followed them : a circumstance which proves, as indeed many others do, that Mr. Pitt's visit to France must have been after the peace, and not before. On his arrival at Fontainebleau, notwithstanding his name and extraordinary talents, he was not very successful, especially with the Queen ; who, owing either to his awkward gait, his countenance, which she did not reckon handsome or even intelligent, or possibly to his bad accent in French, betrayed her want of discernment and levity by pro- nouncing him to be a man of no extraordinary talents or agremens, and used some very disparaging phrases about him. M. De Chastellux, afterwards Minister in America, on hearing of these foolish and frivolous remarks of her Majesty, expressed his disapprobation of them in a pun much relished at the time—C'est egad; ne s'en depiteru pas pour celes. All this was told me by Talleyrand last night, as indeed much of it had been on former occa- sions. He did not, however, repeat to me a circumstance which I have fre- quently heard him mention with some little asperity, and which, to say the truth, does not place Mr. Pitt's taste and good breeding in the most favour- able light. When Talleyrand, then ex-Eveque d'Autun, came (I think in 1792 or late in 1791) with Chauvelin's Embassy to England, and had official intercourse with Mr. Pitt as Prime Minister, Pitt never hinted or alluded to the civilities which he had received from him or his family, or even to the acquaintance they had formed nine or ten years before at Rheims. As it was the policy and fashion of that period to treat the Revolutionary Embassy of France with marked coldness and aversion, Talleyrand considered the omission of all such natural acknowledgments of past civility as an indica- tion, though perhaps an injudicious one, of political hostility to France, rather than of personal slight or affront to him. But when, in 1793 or 1794, in his private capacity as an exiled Frenchman, he sought and obtained an interview with Mr. Pitt to prevail on him to recal the harsh order for re- moving. him under the provisions of the Alien Bill, and not only his request was rejected but the same marked silence on their early acquaintance was observed by Mr. Pitt, he inferred from it a want of feeling and gene- rosity; and he has, I suspect, retained a strong resentment in his mind for what he deems harshness amounting to cruelty, and neglect bordering on indignity. It has often perplexed me how to account for that behaviour of Mr. Pitt. Without any strong predilection in his favour, I must, even as a political opponent, own that I never heard of any other trait or anecdote which would affix on his character so much want of propriety, feeling, and almost of humanity, as this. It seems, when one considers Talleyrand's name, condition in society, and even figure and lameness, almost impossible that Mr. Pitt should have forgotten him ; yet I am inclined to think it less improbable than such unnecessary harshness and unfeeling behaviour in an English gentleman, of indisputable honour and humanity, and above all of such sense and sagacity, as Mr. Pitt. In corroboration of such a conjecture, which at first sight seems quite preposterous, it may be remarked, that in 1790 and 1792 the Eveque d'Autun or M. de Talleyrand were the constant and almost only designations of the person who in 1783 was generally called the Abbe de Perigord ; and that Mr. Pitt, in some far more memorable transactions of his life, from the multiplicity and importance of the affairs in which he was so soon and so constantly engaged, has been known to have forgotten, to a very remarkable degree circumstances which, on a mind less occupied with mighty matters, were eLcidated to make a very lasting im- pression; such, for instance, as the transactions of the Regency in 1788, and particularly the difference between the decisions of the English and Irish Parliaments on that occasion • a circumstance of which, till reminded by Mr. Elliot, he retained no recollection whatever in 1799.
"I have written a volume. Read it and send it back ; for it will do for a memorandum, and prevent my forgetting things, like Pitt."
Previous page
