3rd.—Searched precedents for Catholic clauses. Lord Howick postponed the Mutiny Bill Committee. I showed him the precedents I had collected. He hoped “I should not take any part in the Committee.” But I told him that “I must inevitably do so.”
4th.—Lord Howick wrote me the following note:—
[Private.]
Stratton Street,
March 4, 1807.
My dear Sir,
I believe I shall alter my course of proceeding respecting the new clauses, and introduce a new Bill instead. As the measure is the subject of a notice for discussion to-day, though in another form, I take it for granted there can be no objection to my moving for leave to bring in a Bill, if I should ultimately determine to do so, instead of moving an instruction on the clauses in a committee.
I am afraid I have been guilty of an omission in not moving for an address in answer to the King’s message, which I see was done in the House of Lords yesterday; but, as the treaty was not laid before the House, and the only matter on which a proceeding of the House was to be had was voting the money, I thought it was the best way to refer the message to the Committee of Supply; in which it was proposed to vote to-day the sum advanced to the King of Prussia. Will you have the goodness to let me know, when I come to the House to-day, whether this has been the usual course of proceeding; or whether, if it should not be deemed sufficiently respectful, anything can now be done to correct the error.
I am, my dear Sir,
Ever yours sincerely,
Howick.
He drank tea with me in my room behind the chair. I told him I wished he would confine his Bill to the Irish Law of 1793. To that I could agree; but not without the same exclusion from the high military offices. He said, “That was but a small object.” I replied, “But the principle is large. You will never satisfy Mr. Keogh.” He said, “Oh, I did not think of trying at that. But I have said too much on this subject to let things remain as they are; we must do what satisfies us, whether it satisfies Mr. Keogh or not.”