MR. PITT TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
(Private.) Downing Street, Feb. 15th, 1789.
My dear Lord,
The account received this morning of the step which the Irish House of Commons have taken, has not surprised me; as it seemed before evident that the torrent was too strong to be stemmed by any exertion. Those who at the moment felt it as a triumph, perhaps already begin to repent of it, and will probably have more and more reason to do so every day. It will be abundant satisfaction to you and your friends that you have done everything which depended on you; and in the midst of so much profligacy, that you have experienced such a support as that of Fitzgibbon and a few others, which is in the highest degree honourable and manly.
I am fully aware how delicate your ground has been in all the progress of the business, of which we have hitherto learnt the result; and that it is not less so in what remained relative to the transmission of this strange Address. Whatever you may have decided on the spot will, I dare say, under all the circumstances, have been right; and in either of the alternatives, you will not want here the most cordial and decided support, whenever the measure comes into discussion. All that I am now writing is, I hope, superfluous; but I could not let the messenger go, without expressing in part the sentiments for which I trust you would at any rate have given me credit.
* * * * *
Believe me, my dear Lord,
Sincerely and affectionately yours,
W. Pitt.
Lord Buckingham, acting on the discretion thus confided to him, resolved to decline accepting or transmitting the Address. This determination, which threw the whole responsibility of the measure upon those with whom it originated, afforded the highest satisfaction in England. Letters from Lord Mornington, Lord Sydney, and others, abound in admiration of the firmness of Lord Buckingham's conduct.
As had been anticipated, the Address was voted in both Houses of Parliament, and laid before Lord Buckingham for transmission to His Royal Highness. His Lordship at once declined to receive it; and in a short and explicit answer, rested his refusal on the obligations imposed upon him by his duty and his oath, adding that he did not feel warranted in forwarding to His Royal Highness an Address, purporting to invest him with powers to take upon him the government of the realm before he should be enabled by law to do so. This answer, which had received the full approbation of Mr. Pitt, by whom it had been communicated to the Cabinet, was, as might have been expected, deeply resented by the Opposition, whose hostility to the Government had been all along assuming that shape of combination in which it now appeared without disguise.
Frustrated in their desire of transmitting this Address through the channel of the Lord-Lieutenant, they passed a resolution appointing ambassadors of their own to lay it before His Royal Highness. The persons nominated to undertake this extraordinary commission were, the Duke of Leinster, the Earl of Charlemont, Mr. Conolly, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Ponsonby, and Mr. Stewart. Nor did they stop here. It was necessary to avenge the indignity that had been put upon them; and a resolution, declaring the conduct of Lord Buckingham unwarrantable and unconstitutional, was accordingly moved by Mr. Grattan, and carried. That a resolution still stronger than this, going to the preposterous length of declaring the commission of the Lord-Lieutenant actually void by the will of the Irish Parliament, was at one moment contemplated, would appear from a passage in a letter of Mr. Grenville's, dated the 18th of February.
I am a little alarmed by one part of your letter, in which you talk of a resolution of the two Houses being passed for avoiding your commission, and of your resigning the Government in consequence of it to Lords Justices appointed under the Act of last year. I trust, however, that these favourable accounts [of the King's health] will have put this idea out of the question. But if not, for God's sake consider whether there is any one principle in which you deny the right of the two Houses to appoint a Regent by address, which does not apply equally to prove that they cannot either appoint or remove a Lord-Lieutenant by resolution. I am persuaded, the more I think of it, that it is impossible for you to quit the Government in any other manner, than in consequence of a recal from hence, or a resignation grounded on the removal of the Ministers here, or on the Regent's acceptance of the office, under what you consider an illegal appointment.