ONE:The secession of the Duke of Savoy only the more roused the indignation of the Allies. The Dutch breathed a hotter spirit of war just as their power of carrying it on failed; and even the experienced Heinsius made an energetic oration in the States General, declaring that all the fruits of the war would be lost if they consented to the peace proposed. But to avoid it was no longer possible. The English plenipotentiaries pressed the Allies more and more zealously to come in, so much so that they were scarcely safe from the fury of the Dutch populace, who insulted the Earl of Strafford and the Marquis del Borgo, the Minister of the Duke of Savoy, when the news came that the duke had consented to the peace. Every endeavour was made to detach the different Allies one by one. Mr. Thomas Harley was sent to the Elector of Hanover to persuade him to co-operate with her Majesty; but, notwithstanding all risk of injuring his succession to the English Crown, he declined. Similar attempts were made[8] on the King of Prussia and other princes, and with similar results. The English Ministers now began to see the obstacles they had created to the conclusion of a general peace by their base desertion of the Allies. The French, rendered more than ever haughty in their demands by the successes of Villars, raised their terms as fast as any of the Allies appeared disposed to close with those already offered. The Dutch, convinced at length that England would make peace without them, and was bending every energy to draw away their confederates, in October expressed themselves ready to treat, and to yield all pretensions to Douay, Valenciennes, and Mauberg, on condition that Cond and Tournay were included in their barrier; that the commercial tariffs with France should be restored to what they were in 1664; that Sicily should be yielded to Austria, and Strasburg to the Empire. But the French treated these concessions with contempt, and Bolingbroke was forced to admit to Prior that they treated like pedlars, or, what was worse, like attorneys. He conjured Prior "to hide the nakedness of his country" in his intercourse with the French Ministers, and to make the best of the blunders of his countrymen, admitting that they were not much better politicians than the French were poets. But the fault of Bolingbroke and his colleagues was not want of talent, it was want of honesty; and, by their selfish desire to damage their political rivals, they had brought their country into this deplorable dilemma of sacrificing all faith with their allies, of encouraging the unprincipled disposition of the French, who were certain to profit by the division of the Allies, and of abandoning the glory and position of England, or confessing that the Whigs, however much they had erred in entering on such enormous wars, had in truth brought them to the near prospect of a far more satisfactory conclusion than what they were taking up with.
TWO:In the meantime, Mr. Peel had, in the previous month, communicated with the Duke of Wellington, and intimated his wish to retire from the Cabinet, and from the leadership of the House of Commons, in consequence of his being in the minority upon a question which, of all others, most deeply affected the condition and prospects of Ireland, with the government of which he was charged as Home Secretary. The Duke of Wellington's sentiments did not differ from his as to the embarrassment that must arise from divided counsels in the Cabinet. The Duke also acted upon the earnest advice of Mr. Peel not to take a course which would preclude an early settlement of the question. In the debate on Lord Lansdowne's motion, on the 9th of June, that the Lords should concur in the resolution passed by the House of Commons, the Duke and Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst took part in the debate, and, though they did not concur in the resolution, which was rejected by a majority of 44, the general tenor of their speeches and of those of the bishops led Lord Lansdowne to observe, in reply, that he thought the noble lord on the woolsack and the noble duke must have had the intention of conceding the Catholic claims, for no one knew better than they did the danger of holding out expectations which could not be realised. The Session of 1828 was closed by a Speech from the Throne on the 28th of July. As only three weeks of the Session had to elapse after the Clare election, Mr. O'Connell did not offer to take his seat, preferring to make the most of the "M.P." in the work of agitation till the meeting of Parliament in the spring. And, besides, he was probably aware that he would have no opportunity of making a speech. If he appeared, the Speaker would desire him to take the oaths required by law; and if he declined, he would treat him as a stranger and intruder, and listen to nothing he had to say. He could not be summoned to the House, and compelled to attend, because he was not returned at a general election; and it was thought better to let him enjoy his senatorial honours unmolested for six months, than to enter, at the close of the Session, into an irritating and protracted contest.THREE:Five days after this, February 10th, the matter was made public by Lord Darnley rising in the Upper House, and moving for an inquiry into the conduct of the Ministry. This roused up Lord Grenville, who candidly avowed that, in consequence of their failure to introduce the question of Catholic emancipation, the Ministers had resigned and only held office till a new Cabinet was formed. On this, Lord Darnley postponed his motion. On the same day, in the Commons, a letter from Addington, the Speaker, was read, announcing his resignation of the Speakership in consequence of the king's proposal to nominate him to a situation incompatible with that post. Pitt then rose and confirmed this, and proposed an adjournment till the next day in order to prepare for the nomination of the new Speaker. The House adjourned accordingly, and next day, the 11th of February, elected Sir John Mitford, the Attorney-General, as Speaker. Before the House could resume business, it was announced that the king was illconfined to the house by a severe cold; but it was soon known that it was a return of his old malady, lunacy, in consequence of his extreme agitation on the proposal of the Catholic question and the resignation of Pitt. The report was soon augmented into the startling rumour that the king was dangerously ill, and that a regency must take placeif not superseded by his death. At this news Fox, who had for some time absented himself from Parliament, on the plea that all endeavours to carry sound and prudent measures were hopeless with Pitt's great martial majority, hastened up to town from St. Anne's Hill; and the Whig body was in a flutter of expectation that he would soon be the Minister of the prince regent, or of George IV. But all these hopes were speedily overthrown by the news of the rapid improvement of the king, and on the 12th of March the royal physicians announced him perfectly recovered. He attributed his illness to Pitt's conduct, and the ex-Premier thereupon wrote and promised never to re-open the question again.
FORE:Reproduced by Andr & Sleigh, Ld., Bushey, Herts.[46]
FORE:CHAPTER IX. REIGN OF GEORGE III. (continued).
