the empire, with which he is decidedly of opinion that the nation must stand or fall.'-
[Footnote 190: At one time it was the fashion with writers of the Liberal party to represent Lord Liverpool as led by Lord Castlereagh in the earlier, and by Canning in the later, part of his administration; but Lord Liverpool's correspondence with both these ministers shows clearly that on every subject of foreign as well as of home policy he was the real guide and ruler of his cabinet. Even the recognition of the independence of the South American provinces of Spain-which is so often represented as exclusively the work of Canning-the memorandum on the subject which Lord Liverpool drew up for the cabinet proves that the policy adopted was entirely his own, and that as such he adhered to it resolutely, in spite of the avowed disapproval of the Duke of Wellington and the known unwillingness of the King to sanction it; and it may be remarked (as he and Lord Castlereagh have sometime been described as favoring the Holy Alliance), that the concluding sentence of his letter to the Duke on the subject expresses his hostility, not only to that celebrated treaty, but to the policy which dictated and was embodied in it. (See Lord Liverpool's memorandum for the cabinet and letter to the Duke of Wellington, December 8, 1824.)-
[Footnote 191: See ante, p. 222.]
[Footnote 192: 'With much prudence or laudable disinterestedness,' says Hallam ('Constitutional History,' ii., 532).]
[Footnote 193: The last time had been in 1790, when there had been a majority of 187 against it.-
[Footnote 194: 237 to 193.]
[Footnote 195: 'Peel's Memoirs,' i., 68.]
[Footnote 196: 'Wellington's Civil Despatches,' iv., 453.]
[Footnote 197: See his letter to Peel, March 23 ('Peel's Memoirs,' i., 92-100).]
[Footnote 198: The entry of this bill in Cobbett's 'Parliamentary History' is: 'The House of Commons testified a very extraordinary zeal in unravelling the Popish Plot, and, to prevent mischief in the interval, passed a bill to disable Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament,' to which the Lords, when the bill came up to their House, added a proviso exempting the Duke of York from its operation. An. 1678; October 26 to November 21.--
[Footnote 199: In the House of Commons the majority for Sir F. Burdett's resolution was six-372 to 266. But, in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne, moving the same resolution, was defeated by forty-five-182 to 137.]
[Footnote 200: See Fitzgerald's letter to Peel ('Peel's Memoirs,' i., 114).]
[Footnote 201: 'Peel's Memoirs,' i., 121.]
[Footnote 202: See 'Lord Anglesey's Letters,'
[Footnote 203: As early as the year 1812, on the negotiations (mentioned in a former chapter) for the entrance of Lord Grenville and Lord Grey into the ministry, the Duke of York mentioned to both those noblemen that the Regent had an insuperable objection to the concession of Emancipation. And it seems probable that it was the knowledge of his sentiments on that point that greatly influenced the course which Lord Liverpool subsequently pursued in regard to that question.-See
[Footnote 204: Speech on moving the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords, February 19, 1829 ('Hansard,' xx., 389).]
[Footnote 205: Speech on the first reading of the bill, February 10 ('Hansard,' xx., 208).]
[Footnote 206: Speech on the first reading ('Hansard,' xx., 198).]
[Footnote 207: An amendment was proposed by Lord Chandos to add the office of Prime-minister to these three, on the ground that if a Roman Catholic were Prime-minister 'he might have the disposal of all the patronage of the state and the Church vested in his hands.' But Mr. Peel pointed out that the law of England 'never recognized any such office as that of Prime-minister. In the eyes of the law the ministers were all on an equality.' And the position, such as it was, being a conventional one, was not necessarily connected with the office of First Lord of the Treasury. 'In a recent instance his late right honorable friend, Mr. Canning, had determined to hold the office of Prime-minister with that of Secretary of State. And when Lord Chatham was Prime-minister, he did not hold the office of First Lord of the Treasury.' At the same time he explained that the impropriety of intrusting a Roman Catholic with Church patronage was already guarded against in the bill, a clause of which provided that 'it should not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise the crown in any appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment, lay or ecclesiastical, in the united Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland.'-
[Footnote 208: Many years afterward the restriction as to the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland was abolished.]
[Footnote 209: The plan which Pitt had intended to propose was to substitute in lieu of the Sacramental test a political test, to be imposed indiscriminately on all persons sitting in Parliament, or holding state or corporation offices, and also on all ministers of religion, of whatever description, etc., etc. This test was to disclaim in express terms the sovereignty of the people, and was to contain an oath of allegiance and 'fidelity to the King's government of the realm, and to the established constitutions of Church and state.'-Letter of Lord Grenville, given in
[Footnote 210: The question had been discussed with the highest Papal authorities more than once since the beginning of the century. In 1812 Mgr. Quarantotti, the prelate who, during the detention of the Pope in France by Napoleon, was invested with the chief authority in ecclesiastical affairs at Rome, in a letter to the Vicar-apostolic, Dr. Poynter, formally announced the consent of the Papal See to give the King a veto on all ecclesiastical appointments within the United Kingdom; and, after his return to Rome, Pio VII. himself confirmed the former title by a second addressed, by his instructions, to the same Dr. Poynter, which letter, in 1816, was read by Mr. Grattan in the House of Commons, it being throughout understood that this concession of the veto to the King was conditional on the abolition of the disabilities and the endowment of the priesthood. And in 1825, after Lord Francis Egerton's resolution had been carried in the House of Commons, Dr. Doyle, one of the most eminent of the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, in an examination before a committee of the House of Lords, expressed the willingness of the Roman Catholic clergy to accept a state provision, if it were permanently annexed to each benefice, and accompanied with a concession of an equality of civil rights to the Roman Catholic laity.-See
[Footnote 211: The sum to be thus employed seems to have been intended to be L300,000 a year.-
[Footnote 212: See his 'Civil Despatches,' iv., 570. In February, 1829, he said to Lord Sidmouth, 'It is a bad business, but we are aground.' 'Does your Grace think, then,' asked Lord Sidmouth, 'that this concession will tranquillize Ireland?' 'I can't tell; I hope it will,' answered the Duke, who shortly discovered, and had the magnanimity to admit, his mistake.-
[Footnote 213: This first extract refers in part to the proposal which he made to the Duke to resign his office as Secretary of State, and to support the Emancipation as a private member, a design which he only relinquished at the Duke's earnest entreaty. The second extract refers to the seat in Parliament alone.-See
[Footnote 214: Speech to the electors of Bristol on being declared by the sheriffs duly elected member for that city, November 3, 1774.-
[Footnote 215: It is worth pointing out, however, that, as if it were one of the natural fruits of the Reform Bill, the Liberal Committee of the Livery of London in 1832 passed a series of resolutions asserting the principle of delegation without the slightest modification; one resolution affirming 'that members chosen to be representatives
