If you support Government on these questions about the Queen, it is not at all from any particular attachment to Lord C——, or any of his colleagues, but from what you think due both to the King and to the country, to contribute, as far as you can, to resist the degradation which the Radicals and their allies would bring on the first, and the ruin which must, if they succeed in that attempt, ensue to the country.
It would be most unjust to require Lord C——, in this warfare, to abstain from a natural and obvious ground of defence. I am not so unreasonable as to expect this, if I cared one farthing about anything that can be said of that inquiry, in which, if I cared at all, it was in being too easily satisfied. Nor am I so thin-skinned as to have any feeling on the subject; and the only thing that could have made it at all unpleasant to me would be the appearance (which such a step as you speak of must have) of my being angered on the occasion, and having used any influence I might have with you to the effect of inducing you to act contrary certainly to all my opinions and wishes, and, I believe, contrary to your own.
Pray—pray, therefore, let all your friends, if they and you agree with me in thinking Lord Tavistock's motion fit to be negatived, cry "No!" as stoutly as I would if I had anything to say or do on the occasion.
RIGHT HON. THOMAS GRENVILLE TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
Dropmore, Feb. 1, 1821.
My dear Lord B——,
The two brothers here are quite astounded at the importance which you and Charles attach to Lord Castlereagh's attack upon the Government of 1806-7, and still more at the influence which both of you seem disposed to give to it in your conduct on the impending motions in Parliament. In the first place, it is to be observed that it is not fair dealing to expect Castlereagh to forbear from attacking Lord Grey, Lord Lansdowne, and Mr. Tierney, on their hostility to the Queen fourteen years ago, because he cannot do so without including Lord Grenville, as well as Lord Spencer and Lord Erskine, as members of that Government. I think Lord C—— fully entitled to reproach that inconsistency of conduct to Lord Grey and his colleagues—an inconsistency which in no degree applies to Lord Grenville; but even if it did, surely Lord C—— is not to be deprived of his legitimate warfare upon those to whom he is opposed, because Lord Grenville was in those days politically connected with them. But even supposing that you had reason in this respect to complain of Lord C—— (which I utterly deny), still it would be a most unjustifiable, and unbecoming, and culpable course, to suffer any such personal considerations to influence your conduct upon the great public questions which are impending. Those questions are to decide whether the Opposition is to be suffered, from its base alliance with the Radicals and with the Q——, to take violent possession of the Government, in order to overturn the whole system of our constitution; to bring in annual or triennial Parliaments; to do little short of introducing universal suffrage; to disband the army, which now holds the Radicals in check; and, very probably, to let loose Bonaparte, under pretence of mitigating his confinement. These are some of the first fruits of what is to be expected from Lord Tavistock's motion, if, by its success, it removes the present Government; and can you look at any part of this picture, and yet suffer any personal considerations to weigh for one moment in your mind, while such superior considerations are at stake? I could have added much upon the disgrace you would throw on Lord Grenville, if he could be suspected, as he would, of being a party to so much personal irritation in questions of the very vital existence of the constitution of the country. But he writes himself.
The next letter commences with a reference to the judgment passed by Judge Bailey on that popular leader, Sir Francis Burdett. It was merely a fine of £2000, and imprisonment for three months in the King's Bench:—
MR. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE MARQUIS OF BUCKINGHAM.
Whitehall, Feb. 10, 1821.