[259] ‘A clear and precise rule was laid down for the regulation of the circuitous trade by the enemy to the colonies, which defined the difference between a continuous and intercepted voyage’ (Alison, History of Europe, v. 677). The discussion of the question of impressment of seamen was postponed till some future occasion, owing to the difficulties which surrounded it. The British Government pledged themselves in the meantime to use their powers with the utmost moderation. President Jefferson, however, refused to ratify the treaty.
[260] At the rupture of the Treaty of Amiens.
[261] Lord Minto had been appointed Governor-General of India. He at first refused to accept office, and only did so at the earnest desire of Lord Grenville. That he was loath to do so is shown by letters, published in vol. iii. of his Life and Letters, to Lady Minto, who on the score of health was precluded from accompanying him. Fox first offered the appointment to Lord Lauderdale, but the Court of Directors refused to receive him. He therefore consented to waive his claim to the dignity.
[262] In answer to Lord Howick Mr. Perceval explained that the word ‘attached’ was taken from a letter of Mr. Fox to Talleyrand published in the Correspondence, in which he had ‘subscribed himself “with the most perfect attachment”’ (Hansard).
[263] William Roscoe (1753–1831), the author of the Lives of Lorenzo de’ Medici and Leo X. He was elected in the Whig interest as member for Liverpool in 1806, but was defeated at the succeeding election.
[264] William Frederick, second Duke of Gloucester (1776–1834), son of William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and Maria, Countess of Waldegrave. He married, in 1816, Princess Mary, George III.’s daughter.
[265] Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge (1774–1850), seventh son of George III.
[266] This is probably the paper printed in Memorials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox, ii. 340, &c. It was to be delivered to the King in 1789, with the memorial, also drawn up by Minto and Burke, containing a justification of the Prince’s and Duke of York’s conduct during their father’s illness. Both documents were discussed at a meeting of the Whig leaders held at Carlton House, and it was decided not to present the memorial with this paper, but to accompany it only with a short explanatory letter.
[267] Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.
When the Grenville Ministry first took office on Mr. Pitt’s death no stipulation was made to the King regarding the Catholic question. The Irish Catholics, seeing Ministers in power most of whom they knew to be favourably inclined to their claims, began at once to agitate for the removal of disadvantages under which they laboured. The greatest anomaly was, that by the Act of 1793 Irish Catholics could become officers in the army there (though still unable to rise to certain staff appointments), but could not hold that rank in England. A promise, however, had been made at the time that matters would be speedily readjusted. This and other points were brought to Mr. Fox’s notice soon after he had taken office, but he advised a postponement of the suggested petition to Parliament, as likely for the present to be of no permanent advantage. He stated, however, that he was quite willing to risk a dissolution of the Ministry on the question, if they so wished it. Better counsels prevailed; but after Mr. Fox’s death the matter again came to the front. Ministers were in a dilemma. On one side they risked the King’s displeasure, on the other they would be obliged to proclaim certain parts of Ireland where agitation was breaking out, on a question with which they themselves sympathised. The former evil was considered the least, and it was decided by a clause in the Mutiny Act to allow Irish Catholics and Dissenters to serve in the English army. To this the King was agreeable; but Ministers desired to go further. It was found easier to bring forward the matter in the form of a Bill, and one was drafted which opened the staff appointments to the Catholics, and also allowed English Dissenters to serve in the army and navy. Lord Howick thought he had received the King’s consent to this, but subsequently the latter flatly refused to confirm it. The Bill was dropped, but the Ministers reserved for themselves the right to bring forward the question again, should circumstances so demand. This the King requested them to withdraw; they refused, and were at once dismissed.