As heir to the most powerful political interest in Scotland, ‘Robin’ Dundas had, in his father’s view, only one essential public object to keep in view: the credit of ‘the honourable and natural connection in politics which circumstances have prepared for you’.
Henry Dundas had fair expectations of his only son at the outset of his public career: his only fault was ‘the love of his pillow’.
On his father’s political retreat in 1801 Dundas, who resigned his seat, was not expected by him to play any significant role in Parliament; yet in June he was returned unopposed for Edinburghshire in place of his cousin Robert. ‘My chief comfort’, his father wrote, 6 July 1802, ‘is that my son is getting on so fast in the confidence and goodwill of the country [Scotland]. I think he will soon save me a great deal of disagreeable trouble.’
My son talked of not going to London till February, but I have urged him to go before the meeting of Parliament, for it appears to me that in every point of view his presence is essentially necessary. He is in every view the best channel of communication both with my counsel and parliamentary friends.
Blair Adam mss.
He was in attendance at Pitt’s funeral.
Dundas had to come to terms with his father’s reluctance to leave Scotland—it soon became his principal grievance—in February 1806 when Lord Moira chose him as his confidant for the Scottish arrangements proposed by the Grenville ministry. Knowing that his father could not openly support a government that was prosecuting him and that the family interest in Scotland was at stake, he was impressed by Moira’s assurance that he did not intend to be ‘the instrument of a system of dispossession’. Moira’s lack of cordiality with Fox inspired in son and father alike the hope that the ministry would in due course dish the Foxites in favour of a junction with the proscribed Pittites, with Moira swaying the Prince of Wales to support it. This was in accordance with the notion of the leaders of the Pitt party that they might form a corps de réserve for Lord Grenville to draw on, rather than go into systematic opposition, which Dundas assured Moira was not their wish. This plan soon met with obstacles: Melville had not forgiven Grenville his desertion of Pitt; Moira gave up the management of Scotland to Earl Spencer; and the Foxites embarrassed Dundas by proposing an opposition to him in Edinburghshire, though he soon scotched it. Early in March he was at the dinner of opposition ‘younkers’ at White’s, after being absent on the division of 3 Mar.; and on 26 Mar., Whitbread’s motion for the House to attend Lord Melville’s trial at Westminster Hall was carried, against his opposition, after he had failed to get Lord Grenville to restrain his colleagues’ vendetta. He was in the minority against the repeal of Pitt’s Additonal Force Act, 30 Apr. 1806. He had suspected from the start that it would prove impossible to please both parties.
Dundas drew little attention to himself in Parliament during the remainder of the Grenville ministry, though it was expected that, on any change, his father wished his son to ‘represent his father’s name and secure his influence’. Meanwhile, in June 1806, his attempt as keeper of the signet to promote a congratulatory address on his father’s acquittal rattled the ministry and came near to provoking a remodelling of the legal establishment in Scotland.
Dundas evidently feared that his father’s professed indifference to office for himself, as well as the risk to the popularity of any government that restored his father to office, would prejudice his own public prospects. He was engaged in ‘softening’ Melville, to prevent this outcome, when the restoration to power of Pitt’s friends brought him the offer of the presidency of the Board of Control. On 23 Mar. 1807 Dundas assured his father that he would decline the offer next day unless Melville was prepared to give his cordial support to ministers; he was genuinely averse to office for himself. Melville, in his ambiguous reply, eschewed office ‘for the dregs of my life’, but indicated that, since he had been cleared of the charges against him the year before, he regarded his reputation as unsullied, and that his son’s taking office under a government he was certainly prepared to support was not to be regarded as an abdication of it on his part.
Dundas’s contribution to the Portland administration was largely confined to Indian business, for the transaction of which he insisted on a house in Downing Street. He soon found himself handicapped by his father’s discontent with ministers, expressed in July 1807 over the government’s interference in Scottish patronage arrangements. These Melville evidently wished either to have complete management of or to relinquish, hinting to his son that he had meant to devolve their control gradually on him.
In April 1809 Dundas reluctantly agreed to become Irish secretary, though his father thought that he discharged his Indian business ‘with great éclat’ and would be missed in that department, while the management of Scotland should more properly have been his concern than that of Ireland. Moreover, Melville was driven into near hostility by not being invited to take office himself. Dundas admitted to ‘an hereditary hankering ... after Indian concerns, and a proper Caledonian maladie du pays’.
Dundas was in Dublin when the Portland ministry collapsed in September 1809 and, when summoned to London to parley, made it clear that he would not accept office under a patchwork administration: new strength must be obtained. He admitted to Perceval that between him and Canning his preference went to the latter, but he thought Canning had put himself in the wrong at this juncture. To Canning’s disappointment, he ignored a previous assurance (made before he went to Ireland) that he would not stay in office if Canning went out, and he conditionally made himself available to a new ministry. He approved overtures to the opposition leaders Grey and Grenville, provided their terms were moderate and that ‘Jacobins’ were excluded; and he declined coming to terms with Perceval, wishing to judge a new government on its merits, though his finances were ‘not very flourishing’ at this time.
Dundas could not himself avoid the conclusion others readily jumped to, that his father was prepared to sacrifice his career inter alia to his own ambition to return to power; he had been mortified by the discovery, but remained impressed by Perceval’s reasoning against any offer to his father. While he professed satisfaction at his restoration to the Board of Control, he was, in the Duke of Richmond’s words, ‘fit for any situation’. His undersecretary in Ireland, Saxton, reported himself ‘much bitten by his good sense and apparent purity. I verily believe with Richmond at our helm, the Scotchman’s sturdiness would have trimmed this cranky pinnace of our state very much to her own advantage and the public good’. Hiley Addington thought Dundas would have made ‘a good business secretary of state, being a man of sound judgment, great prudency and indefatigable industry. But as a speaker, he is nothing.’ Lord Mulgrave noted that while his father remained unpopular, Dundas was ‘perfectly unexceptionable and is highly respected and very popular’ but, not being allowed ‘to follow the bias of his own disposition’, his continued presence in the government was doubtless intended by Melville as a reproachful reminder of his own exclusion. Melville and other members of the family chose to remind Dundas of this.
Although Dundas, no longer confining himself to official business, stood by government in the debates on the Scheldt inquiry
It is come to a crisis in which I must either break off altogether all political connection with him and endeavour to attach to the present administration as large a portion as possible of his friends in Scotland or I must act inconsistently with my duty to his Majesty and his government.
Perceval did not think government could afford to lose ‘the Scotch legion’, but pointed out that Melville could not dictate his terms for his return to office. Dundas promised to reason with his father, being, it was reported, unable to bear ‘the idea of appearing to detach his father’s friends from him’, which would cause a schism and be ‘the ruin of the Melville interest’. Perceval now offered Dundas the Admiralty, but he declined, 28 Apr., while offering to support any acquisition of strength to the ministry except the ‘Jacobins’ (i.e. Whitbread and Burdett). After an interview with Melville that day, Perceval reported: ‘Dundas and his Scotch friends will not I think leave us immediately, but he will not be reconciled to stay long unless we can get more strength’. Wellesley Pole gave a stronger version: that his father had called on Dundas to quit office ‘on pain of never seeing him again if he disobeys’ and that Dundas, ‘a dutiful child’, would desert, with 23 Melvillites.
In the autumn of 1810 Dundas was reported to be one of the few members of the cabinet ready to take Canning back to their bosom and, failing that, he was prepared to advocate admitting Castlereagh and Sidmouth to the exclusion of Canning.
Melville, who in 1812 accepted the Admiralty, remained ‘a mere respectable head of department’
