August 22nd, 1828
Went to Stoke on the 19th and came back yesterday. There were the Dowager Lady Salisbury, Duchess of Newcastle, Worcester and Lady W. Russell, Giles, Billy Churchill. On the 18th Dawson’s speech11 at Derry reached us, and I never remember any occurrence which excited greater surprise. The general impression was that he made the speech, with the Duke’s knowledge and concurrence, which I never believed. I thought from what he said to me just before he went to Ireland that he had changed his own opinion, and now many people say they knew this; but I was little prepared to hear of his making DAWSON’S SPEECH AT DERRY. such a speech at such a place as Derry, and on such an occasion as a ‘Prentice Boy’ commemoration. The rage and fury of the Orangemen there and of the Orange press here are boundless, and the violence and scurrility of their abuse are the more absurd because Dawson only described in glowing colours, and certainly without reserve, the actual state of Ireland, but did not argue the question at all further than leaving on his hearers the inevitable inference that he thought the time for granting emancipation was come. The truth is that the conversion of one of the most violent anti-Catholics must strike everybody as a strong argument in favour of the measure, and they know not by how many and by whom his example may be followed. The Orangemen are moving heaven and earth to create disturbances, and their impotent fury shows how low their cause is sunk. The Catholics, on the contrary, are temperate and calm, from confidence in their strength and the progressive advance of their course. But although I think the Catholics are now in a position which renders their ultimate success certain, I am very far from participating in the sanguine expectations of those who think the Duke of Wellington is convinced that the question must be settled directly, and that he will carry it through in the ensuing session. In the first place I see clearly that the Government are extremely annoyed at Dawson’s speech. I saw Goulburn to-day, and though he did not say much, what he did say was enough to satisfy me of this: ‘he hoped that it had been incorrectly reported.’ Dawson has written to the Duke,12 and the letter was sent to him to-day. But what has put me in despair about it is a letter of the Duke’s which Drummond read to me to-day addressed, I do not know to whom, but upon that subject. It began, ‘My dear sir,’ and after other matter proceeded nearly as follows:—‘This subject has been more discussed and more pamphlets have been written upon it in the course of the last twenty-five years than any other that I can remember. No two people are agreed upon what ought to be done, and yet the Government is expected at once to settle the question.’ This is the old argument, as if after thirty years’ discussion in every shape it was not time to settle the question. As if those who undertake to govern the country were not the men who are bound to find the means of settling it and allaying the irritation it causes. And as if, instead of no two persons being agreed upon the subject, all the ablest and wisest men in the country were not cordially agreed that complete emancipation is the only remedy for the evils that exist, and that they are opposed by the most despicable faction which ever existed, animated by the most base and sordid motives. This letter was read to me as conveying the Duke’s opinions, which his secretary thought were very sound and sensible, and which I think evinced a degree of anility quite pitiable, and proves how little there is to expect from any liberality and good sense on his part.
I do not yet know the whole truth of the Lord High Admiral’s resignation, but it seems that it is not yet certain. Negotiations on the subject are still going on. I believe he quarrelled with his council, particularly Cockburn, and that Government took part with Cockburn. The Duke of Clarence wants to promote deserving officers, but they oppose it on account of the expense, and they find in everything great difficulty in keeping him in order. His resignation will be very unpopular in the navy, for his system of promotion was more liberal and impartial than that of his predecessor, whose administration was one perpetual job, and who made the patronage of the Admiralty instrumental to governing Scotland. Hitherto the appointments of Government have not been the most judicious—Lord Belmore to Jamaica, because he is a Lord, and a very dull one; Lord Strangford to the Brazils, though the Duke knows as well as anybody that he cannot be trusted, and was recalled by Canning because he said and did all sorts of things at Constantinople for which he had no authority, and they found that no reliance whatever DISMISSAL OF THE LORD HIGH ADMIRAL. was to be placed in him. Lord Stuart de Rothesay, too, is sent back to Paris, though personally obnoxious to the King and universally disliked.
Notes
11 [Mr. Peel’s confidential letter to the Duke of Wellington, stating his reluctant conviction that it was indispensably necessary for the Government to change its policy on the Catholic question, was written on the 11th of August, 1828. The letter is published in Sir Robert Peel’s ‘Posthumous Memoirs,’ vol. i, p. 189. It is a remarkable circumstance that Mr. Dawson’s speech at Derry was made just one week afterwards; but there is no evidence that he knew of the change in his brother-in-law’s opinion. See for further details as to the effect of Dawson’s speech infra.]
12 [This letter is published in the Duke of Wellington’s ‘Correspondence,’ New Series, vol. iv. p. 633. The Duke said, ‘Dawson’s speech is too bad. Surely a man who does such things ought to be put in a strait waistcoat.’ Ibid. p. 636.]