The Right Hon. Robert Peel to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. MY DEAR DUKE, Whitehall, 4th July, 1828. I believe that I have done everything that it is desirable to do, in order that we may be prepared for any course which Mr. O'Connell may pursue. I had no letter from Ireland to-day, which is very odd; but I presume, of course, that Mr. O'Connell is returned. I have this day seen the Speaker, in order that we might determine on our course supposing Mr. O'Connell were suddenly to appear. The Speaker was prepared to order him to leave the house if he had not taken the oaths before the Lord Steward, and if necessary, to enforce that order by the serjeant-at-arms, considering Mr. O'Connell as a stranger. I have a very full opinion on the case from Leslie Foster. I have shown it to the Attorney-General, and have desired him and the Solicitor-General to consider the case without delay. By Monday therefore I shall be quite prepared. Ever yours very sincerely, ROBERT PEEL. I enclose Leslie Foster's opinion. It seems to me unanswerable. Mr. Benjamin Cox to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. MY LORD DUKE, Castletown, Carrick-on-Suir, 4th July, 1828. I consider it my duty to trouble you with this which may afford you a means of safely conducting that country you have already saved under God. A few years ago a Roman Catholic priest of the parish adjoining my elder brother's residence sent to me that he wished to speak with me on important business. At our interview he told me that knowing I was connected with the then Attorney-General, Mr. Saurin, then on a visit in that neighbourhood, he wished me to see him, and to state that the Roman Catholic parish priests were in such bondage, and so tyrannically treated by their bishops, that it was scarce that one could be found bold enough to act loyally to his King on an emergency; but if government would pass an act to prevent the Roman Catholic Bishops (titular) from removing the Roman Catholic parish priests at their own pleasure, but that the parish priests should have a trial by a jury or before the Lord-Lieutenant and Council, it would strengthen the arm of government more than emancipation or anything else: in fact they need do no more. He said the priests would then communicate everything they knew to government, but that now if a well affected loyal priest was suspected of such a thing his bishop could and would remove him at once and let him starve. He told me it would attach all the parish priests to government, and nothing could be hatched seditious that would not at once be made known to government. I called on Mr. Saurin, but he did not approve of the plan. As the thing has never been off my mind, I again, about two years ago, mentioned it (by letter) to Mr. Peel. He did not approve it; still as we don't acknowledge infallibility, and as it might be a measure that would paralyse that tremendous power of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and as I can't see any danger or inconvenience can arise from it, the measure not giving them any power, I determined on communicating with you on the subject. If the measure struck your Grace's mind as likely to be useful I could make farther enquiry. Congratulating your Grace on your situation, and praying that He who guided you in the storm may continue to do so in the calm, to your own farther glory and England's welfare, I have the honour to remain your Grace's humble servant, BENJAMIN Cox. P.S.—I would wish a line directed, Castletown, Carrick-on-Suir. If your Lordship never met Burnet's View of Poland, published a few years ago in London, I believe you will see there the consequence of the then Protestant diet, admitting Roman Catholics to sit. It ended in the Roman Catholics turning out all the Protestants. [933.] To the Duke of Portland. London, 7th July, 1828. MY DEAR LORD DUKE, I beg to refer your Grace to the Act lately passed "to enlarge the powers granted to his Majesty under an Act passed in the fifty-seventh year of his late Majesty to recompense the services of persons holding, or who have held, certain high and efficient civil offices," by which you will see that his Majesty is enabled to grant to any persons who may be nominated by his Majesty as trustees in trust for the benefit of the family of the late Right Honourable George Canning, a pension of three thousand pounds per annum for the life of Mr. Charles Canning, his second son. Being desirous of knowing who the persons are whom it would be agreeable to the family of Mr. Canning that his Majesty should name as trustees under this Act, I trouble your Grace upon the subject, and request you at the same time to let me know what "provisions and regulations" it is desirable that his Majesty should make as to the application of the pension by the trustees in the warrant, as directed by the Act of Parlia ment. I have the honour, &c., WELLINGTON. [ 934. ] To the Earl of Aberdeen. London, 7th July, 1828. MY DEAR LORD ABERDEEN, I have marked some passages in Sir Frederick Lamb's despatches which demonstrate the existence of the same temper. The omission of the word "same" in the translation of the decree of amnesty is likewise very remarkable. It is quite obvious that from the commencement of his embassy Sir Frederick Lamb has taken an erroneous view of the relative situation of this country and Portugal. We are not the protectors of Portugal. Portugal is not a dependency of this country either de jure or de facto, or in principle, or by any construction of our treaty, or in practice. It would be desirable to answer the despatch No. 159, because if we are ever to argue Lamb's case in Parliament it will turn upon this point; and it is very desirable that our opinion upon it should be recorded. It is most important that we should not depart from established principles in any case. We can never know the extent of the inconvenient consequences which may attend such departure. There is no point so clear as that the ambassador from a sovereign, as King of England, for instance, cannot require a Power to listen to and answer officially his representations as ambassador from the same sovereign as King of Hanover; and he cannot expect that other Powers will bind themselves to an agent not duly and sufficiently authorised. This principle ought to be clearly and distinctly put forward in any discussion that you may have with M. de Itabayana, and constantly adverted to. That principle being well guarded, the great object will be to conduct the discussion in such manner as to avoid to involve this country in hostilities for the purpose of upholding the sovereignty of Don Pedro in Portugal. Upon this point I would refer you to Mr. Canning's correspondence with me when I was ambassador at the Congress of Verona, and at the same time with the Portuguese government of the day, in respect to a guarantee asked by the Portuguese government of that day of the liberal institutions established by the Cortes in which you will find these principles discussed; and they were not communicating officially with a person who is not officially authorised by his sovereign. As for the rest, we must adhere to the principles already laid down in Mr. Canning's correspondence, which will certainly keep us out of the scrape. Believe me, &c., ; WELLINGTON. The Lord Chancellor to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. DEAR DUKE OF WELLINGTON, George Street, 8th July, 1828. Enclosed is a copy of the opinion which I sent this morning to the Duke of Cumberland. Ever truly yours, LYNDHURST, [ENCLOSURE.] The Chancellor presents his duty to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland. The Chancellor has read and attentively considered the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Best upon the questions proposed to that learned Judge by his Royal Highness, and the Chancellor begs permission to state that he entirely concurs in the legal view which has been taken of the subject by the Chief Justice. As the proviso in the Act of Parliament requires "that the patent should contain a clause that the annuity should not be payable in respect of any period in which the Prince of Cumberland* shall not reside and be within the United Kingdom unless his Highness shall be absent with the license and consent in writing of his Majesty," a patent without such a clause would not be valid, and the Chancellor is of opinion that his Majesty's license under this Act of Parliament cannot have a retrospective operation. The Chancellor concurs therefore in opinion with the Chief Justice, that with respect to the period already passed no payment of the annuity can be made except with the authority of Parliament. Looking at the subject in this view the Chancellor has adverted to the case of the grant to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, mentioned to him by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland. When that grant was proposed in Parliament in the year 1818, the Duke of Clarence declined accepting it; but afterwards, in the year 1821, in consequence as it was stated of the health of *The present dethroned King of Hanover. the Duchess of Clarence not allowing of her residence abroad, the subject was again brought before Parliament and an Act was passed granting the annuity from the year 1818. The Act of 1821 thus gave effect to the original intention of the legislature. It may probably be contended, in the present case, as the Act of 6th George 4th, c. 69, makes the residence of the Prince of Cumberland in the United Kingdom, unless absent with his Majesty's license, a condition of the payment of the annuity, that to pass an Act for granting the arrears would not, as in the case of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, be to give effect to the original intention of the legislature, but to act at variance with it. This certainly is an unfavourable view of the application of the case of his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence to the present question, but the Chancellor has thought it his duty to submit it to the consideration of his Royal Highness. The manner in which the education of his Highness the Prince of Cumberland has been conducted, and the selection of the tutor intrusted with so important a charge, have manifested the strong desire of his Royal Highness to give effect, as far as the peculiar circumstances of his situation would permit, to the wishes of the legislature, and cannot fail to be highly gratifying to Parliament and the nation. With respect to the second question proposed by his Royal Highness, viz. : "What leave of absence his Majesty might give the Prince to reside abroad without affecting his Royal Highness's claim to the annuity," the Chancellor begs permission to observe that the legislature has declared "that it is highly expedient that his Highness the Prince of Cumberland should be educated within the United Kingdom," and to this declaration his Majesty is a party. It would obviously be inconsistent with the spirit of this provision for his Majesty to grant a license for the permanent residence of the Prince of Cumberland abroad; but the Chancellor conceives that the Prince might be allowed, if his Majesty should so please, to make such occasional visits to his friends and connections on the Continent as would not materially interfere with the course of his education in this country. The Chancellor begs leave to add for the information of his Royal Highness that when Attorney-General he signed the Bill for the patent. This as the Chancellor understands was afterwards cancelled at the Treasury. It will be necessary therefore before the patent can be made out that directions for that purpose should be given by the Lords of the Treasury. The Chancellor, agreeably to his Majesty's desire, humbly submits the above minute of his opinion upon the points above noticed to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland. To the Right Hon. Sir George Cockburn, Bart. London, July, 1828. MY DEAR SIR GEORGE, VOL. IV. 2 L [ 936. ] |