Produced by Paul Murray, Eve M. Behr and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's note:
In this work, all spellings and punctuation were
reproduced from the original work except in the very few
cases where an obvious typo occurred. These typos are
corrected without comment.
In the original work, monetary pounds were expressed as
an italicized "l." after the number. For the text
version, I am using the more conventional £100 form for
clarity.
In the original volumes in this set, each even-numbered
page had a header consisting of the page number, the
volume title, and the chapter number. The odd-numbered
page header consisted of the year of the diary entry, a
subject phrase, and the page number. In this set of
e-books, the year is included as part of the date (which
in the original volume were in the form reproduced here,
minus the year). The subject phrase has been converted to
sidenotes, usually positioned where it seemed most
logical but occasionally simply between two paragraphs of
the even-odd pair.
In the original book set, consisting of three volumes,
the master index was in Volume 3. In this set of e-books,
the index has been duplicated into each of the other
volumes. To make the index easier to use in this work,
the page number has been added to each Diary date.
* * * * *
The Greville Memoirs
A JOURNAL OF THE REIGNS
of
KING GEORGE IV.
and
KING WILLIAM IV.
By the Late
CHARLES C. F. GREVILLE, Esq.
Clerk of the Council to Those Sovereigns
Edited by
HENRY REEVE
Registrar of the Privy Council
IN THREE VOLUMES
VOL. I.
Second Edition
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1874
PREFACE
BY THE EDITOR
The Author of these Journals requested me, in January 1865, a few
days before his death, to take charge of them with a view to
publication at some future time. He left that time to my
discretion, merely remarking that Memoirs of this kind ought not,
in his opinion, to be locked up until they had lost their
principal interest by the death of all those who had taken any
part in the events they describe. He placed several of the
earlier volumes at once in my hands, and he intimated to his
surviving brother and executor, Mr. Henry Greville, his desire
that the remainder should be given me for this purpose. The
injunction was at once complied with after Mr. Charles Greville's
death, and this interesting deposit has now remained for nearly
ten years in my possession. In my opinion this period of time is
long enough to remove every reasonable objection to the
publication of a contemporary record of events already separated
from us by a much longer interval, for the transactions related
in these volumes commence in 1818 and end in 1837. I therefore
commit to the press that portion of these Memoirs which embraces
the Reigns of King George IV. and King William IV., ending with
the Accession of her present Majesty.
In accepting the trust and deposit which Mr. Greville thought fit
to place in my hands, I felt, and still feel, that I undertook a
task and a duty of considerable responsibility; but from the time
and the manner in which it was offered me I could not decline it.
I had lived for more than five-and-twenty years in the daily
intercourse of official life and private friendship with Mr.
Greville. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, to whom he had previously
intended to leave these Journals, died before him. After that
event, deeply to be regretted on so many accounts, Mr. Greville
did me the honour to select me for the performance of this duty,
which was unexpected by myself; and my strong attachment and
gratitude to him for numberless acts of kindness and marks of
confidence bound me by every consideration to obey and execute
the wishes of my late friend.
In the discharge of this trust I have been guided by no other
motive than the desire to present these Memorials to the world in
a manner which their Author would not have disapproved, and in
strict conformity with his own wishes and injunctions. He
himself, it should be said, had frequently revised them with
great care. He had studiously omitted and erased passages
relating to private persons or affairs, which could only serve to
gratify the love of idle gossip and scandal. The Journals contain
absolutely nothing relating to his own family, and but little
relating to his private life. In a passage (not now published) of
his own writings, the Author remarks:--
'A journal to be good, true, and interesting, should be
written without the slightest reference to publication,
but without any fear of it: it should be the transcript
of a mind that can bear transcribing. I always
contemplate the possibility that hereafter my journal
will be read, and I regard with alarm and dislike the
notion of its containing matters about myself which
nobody will care to know' (January 2nd, 1838).
These notes were designed chiefly to preserve a record of the
less known causes and details of public events which came under
the Author's observation, and they are interspersed with the
conversations of many of the eminent men with whom he associated.
But it must be borne in mind that they are essentially what they
profess to be--a _contemporary_ record of facts and opinions, not
altered or made up to square with subsequent experience. Hence
some facts may be inaccurately stated, because they are given in
the shape they assumed at the time they were recorded, and some
opinions and judgments on men and things are at variance (as he
himself acknowledges and points out) with those at which the
writer afterwards arrived on the same persons and subjects. Our
impressions of what is passing around us vary so rapidly and so
continually, that a contemporary record of opinion, honestly
preserved, differs very widely from the final and mature judgment
of history: yet the judgment of history must be based upon
contemporary evidence. It was remarked by an acute observer to
Mr. Greville himself, that the _nuances_ in political society are
so delicate and numerous, the details so nice and varying, that
unless caught at the moment they escape, and it is impossible to
collect them again. That is the charm and the merit of genuine
contemporary records.
The two leading qualities in the mind of Mr. Greville were the
love of truth and the love of justice. His natural curiosity,
which led him to track out and analyse the causes of events with
great eagerness, was stimulated by the desire to arrive at their
real origin, and to award to everyone, with judicial impartiality,
what appeared to him to be a just share of responsibility.
Without the passions or the motives of a party politician, he
ardently sympathised with the cause of Liberal progress and
Conservative improvement, or, as he himself expresses it, with
Conservative principles on a Liberal basis. He was equally
opposed to the prejudices of the old Tory aristocracy, amongst
whom he had been brought up, and to the impetuous desire of
change which achieved in his time so many vast and various
triumphs. His own position, partly from the nature of the
permanent office he held in the Privy Council, and partly from
his personal intimacies with men of very opposite opinions, was a
neutral one; but he used that neutral position with consummate
judgment and address to remove obstacles, to allay irritations,
to compose differences, and to promote, as far as lay in his
power, the public welfare. Contented with his own social
position, he was alike free from ambition and from vanity. No man
was more entirely disinterested in his judgments on public
affairs, for he had long made up his mind that he had nothing to
gain or to lose by them, and in the opinions he formed, and on
occasion energetically maintained, he cared for nothing but their
justice and their truth. I trust that I do not deceive myself in
the belief that the impressions of such a man, faithfully
rendered at the time, on the events happening around him, will be
thought to possess a permanent value and interest. But I am aware
that opinions governed by no party standard will appear to a
certain extent to be fluctuating and even inconsistent. I have
not thought it consistent with my duty as the Editor of these
papers to suppress or modify any of the statements or opinions of
their Author on public men or public events; nor do I hold myself
in any way responsible for the tenor of them. Some of these
judgments of the writer may be thought harsh and severe, and some
of them were subsequently mitigated by himself. But those who
enter public life submit their conduct and their lives to the
judgment of their contemporaries and of posterity, and this is
especially true of those who fill the most exalted stations in
society. Every act, almost every thought, which is brought home
to them leaves its mark, and those who come after them cannot
complain that this mark is as indelible as their fame. The only
omissions I have thought it right to make are a few passages and
expressions relating to persons and occurrences in private life,
in which I have sought to publish nothing which could give pain
or annoyance to persons still alive.
It will be observed that these Journals begin in the year 1818,
when Mr. Greville was barely twenty-four years of age, and indeed
I possess some notes of an earlier period, which it was not
thought desirable to include in this publication. At that age Mr.
Greville had but a short experience of life, without the
opportunities of information which he subsequently enjoyed;
consequently the first two or three chapters of the first volume
are of secondary interest, and the political value of the work
begins with the retirement of Lord Liverpool. But it is by his
own express desire that these chapters are retained to complete
the series, and the particulars relating to the Duke of York and
to the Queen's trial are not without interest. As the Author
advanced in life his narrative increases in value both in
substance and in style, and the most important portion of it is
that which must at present be reserved for future publication.
Of the Author of these Journals it may suffice to say that
Charles Cavendish Fulke Greville was the eldest of the three sons
of Charles Greville (who was grandson of the fifth Lord Warwick),
by Lady Charlotte Cavendish Bentinck, eldest daughter of William
Henry, third Duke of Portland, K.G., who filled many great
offices of State. He was born on the 2nd of April, 1794. Much of
his childhood was spent at his grandfather's house at Bulstrode.
He was educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford; but he left
the University early, having been appointed private secretary to
Earl Bathurst before he was twenty.
The influence of the Duke of Portland obtained for him early in
life the sinecure appointment of the Secretaryship of Jamaica,
the duties of that office being performed by deputy, and likewise
the reversion of the Clerkship of the Council. He entered in 1821
upon the duties of Clerk of the Council in Ordinary, which he
discharged for nearly forty years. During the last twenty years
of his life Mr. Greville occupied a suite of rooms in the house
of Earl Granville in Bruton Street, and there, on the 18th of
January, 1865, he expired. I was with him on the previous evening
until he retired to rest; from that sleep he never woke.
No additions whatever have been made to the text of these
Journals. The passages occasionally interposed in a parenthesis,
at a later date, to correct or comment upon a previous statement,
are all by the hand of the Author. So likewise are the notes
distinguished by no mark. For the notes included in brackets []
the Editor is responsible.
Henry Reeve.
October 1st, 1874
Contents of the First Volume
CHAPTER I.
Queen Charlotte--Duchesses of Cumberland and Cambridge--
Westminster Election--Contest between Sir Francis Burdett and
Sir Murray Maxwell--London Election--Oatlands--The Duke of
York--Duchess of York--Ampthill--Tixall--Mr. Luttrell--Lady
Granville--Teddesley--Macao--Burleigh--Middleton--Lady Jersey--
The New Parliament--Tierney and Pitt--Princess Lieven--Madame
de Staël on the French Revolution--Westminster Election--
Hobhouse Defeated--Scarlett's Maiden Speech--Influence of
Party--Play--The Persian Ambassador at Court--Prince Leopold--
Woburn--Anecdote of the Allies--Death of George III.--Illness
of George IV.--Queen Caroline--Fleury de Chabaulon--The Cato
Street Conspiracy--George IV. at Ascot--Marchioness of
Conyngham--Queen Caroline in London--Message to Parliament--
Debates--Insubordination in the Guards--Wilberforce's Motion--
Proceedings against the Queen--'Les Liaisons dangereuses'--The
Queen's Trial--The Duke of Wellington on the Battle of Waterloo
and the Occupation of Paris.
Page 1
CHAPTER II.
Popularity of George IV.--The Duke of York's Racing
Establishment--Clerk of the Council--Lord Liverpool and Mr.
Sumner--Lady Conyngham--Death of Lady Worcester--Her
Character--Ball at Devonshire House--The Duke of York's
Aversion to the Duke of Wellington--The Pavilion at Brighton--
Lord Francis Conyngham--The King and the Duke of Wellington--
Death of the Marquis of Londonderry--His Policy--Sir B.
Bloomfield sent to Stockholm--Mr. Canning's Foreign Secretary--
Queen Caroline and Brougham--Canning and George IV.--Lord
William Bentinck aspires to go to India--His Disappointment--
The Duke of York's Duel with Colonel Lennox--George III.'s
Will--George IV. appropriates the late King's Personal
Property--The Duke of Wellington on the Congress of Verona and
on the Politics of Europe--Intervention in Spain--Ferdinand
VII.--M. de Villèle--The Duke's Opinion of Napoleon--Sir
William Knighton--The Duke of York's Anecdotes of George IV.--
Death of the Marquis of Titchfield--His Character
Page 43
CHAPTER III.
The Panic of 1825--Death of the Emperor Alexander--The Duke of
Wellington's Embassy to St. Petersburg--Robinson Chancellor of
the Exchequer--Small Notes Bill--Death of Arthur de Ros--George
III. and Lord Bute--Illness and Death of the Duke of York--His
Funeral--Lord Liverpool struck with Paralysis--Rundell's
Fortune and Will--Copley and Phillpotts--The Cottage--Formation
of Mr. Canning's Administration--Secession of the Tories--The
Whigs join him--Dinner at the Royal Lodge--Difficulties of
Canning's Government--Duke of Wellington visits the King--
Canning's Death--Anecdotes of Mr. Canning--Recognition of South
American States--His Industry--The Duke of Wellington on
Canning--Lord Goderich's Administration formed--The Difficulty
about Herries--Position of the Whigs--The King's Letter to
Herries--Peel and George IV.--Interview of Lord Lansdowne with
the King--Weakness of the Government--First Resignation of Lord
Goderich--Lord Harrowby declines the Premiership--Lord Goderich
returns--Brougham and Rogers--Conversation and Character of
Brougham--Lord Goderich's Ministry dissolved--Cause of its
Dissolution--Hostility of Herries--Position of Huskisson and
his Friends--Herries and Huskisson both join the New Cabinet
Page 77
CHAPTER IV.
The Duke of Wellington's Administration--Huskisson's Speech--
Irritation of Mr. Canning's Friends--Tom Duncombe's Maiden
Speech--Mr. Huskisson resigns and the Canningites quit the
Government--Princess Lieven hostile to the Duke--The Catholic
Question--Jockey Club Dinner at St. James's--Lord Lyndhurst--
Sir Robert Adair--Fox and Burke--Fox and Pitt--The Lord High
Admiral dismissed by the King--Dawson's Speech on Catholic
Emancipation--The King's Health--His Pages--State of Ireland--
Marquis of Anglesey--O'Connell--His Influence in Ireland--Lord
Belmore Governor of Jamaica--The Duke's Letter to Dr. Curtis--
Recall of Lord Anglesey from Ireland--Causes of this Event--
Excitement of the King on the Catholic Question--His Aversion
to Sir William Knighton--Character of George IV.--Denman's Silk
Gown--Pension to Lady Westmeath--Duke of Wellington on Russia--
The Reis-Effendi--Duke of Northumberland goes to Ireland--Privy
Council Register--State Paper Office--The Gunpowder Plot--
Catholic Emancipation--Navarino
Page 124
CHAPTER V.
The Catholic Relief Bill--Inconsistency of the Tories--The
Catholic Association--Dinner at Charles Grant's--The Terceira
Expedition--Tory Discontent--Peel resigns his Seat for Oxford
University--A Blunder in Chancery--The Oxford Election--
Influence of the Duke of Wellington--Debate of Royal Dukes--
Peel beaten--Sir Edward Codrington--Violence of the King--
Intrigues to defeat the Catholic Bill--The Duke of Cumberland--
Furious State of Parties--Matuscewitz--Peel's Speech on
Catholic Emancipation--Exclusion of O'Connell from his Seat for
Clare--Pitt's View of Catholic Emancipation--'Musae
Cateatonenses'--'Thorough'--Mr. Lowther not turned out--Duke of
Newcastle's Audience of George IV.--The King's Personal
Habits--The Debate--Mr. Sadler--Hardness of the Duke of
Wellington--His Duel with Lord Winchelsea--The Bishops and the
Bill--Sir Charles Wetherell--The King on the Duel--Lord
Winchelsea's Pocket-handkerchief--Debate on the Catholic Bill--
The Duke of Richmond--Effects of Dawson's Speech on the King--
The Bill in Jeopardy--Lady Jersey and Lord Anglesey--Lord
Falmouth and Lord Grey--O'Connell at Dinner--The Duke breaks
with Lord Eldon--Hibner the Murderess--Theatrical Fund--The
Levee--The Duke's Carriage stopped--The King's Health--Lady
Conyngham--O'Connell's Seat--Child's Ball at Court--Princess
Victoria--Legal Appointments--Lord Palmerston on Foreign
Affairs--The King and Lord Sefton--The King's Speech on the
Prorogation--Madame Du Cayla--George IV.'s Inaccuracy--
Conversation of the Duke of Wellington on the King and the Duke
of Cumberland
Page 166
CHAPTER VI.
The Recorder's Report--Manners of George IV--Intrigues of the
Duke of Cumberland--Insults Lady Lyndhurst--Deacon Hume at the
Board of Trade--Quarrel between the Duke of Cumberland and the
Lord Chancellor--A Bad Season--Prostration of Turkey--France
under Polignac--State of Ireland--Mr. Windham's Diary--George
IV.'s Eyesight--Junius--A Man without Money--Court-martial on
Captain Dickenson--The Duke and the 'Morning Journal'--Physical
Courage of the King--A Charade at Chatsworth--Huskisson and the
Duke--Irish Trials--Tom Moore--Scott--Byron--Fanny Kemble--Sir
James Mackintosh--His Conversation--Black Irishmen--Moore's
Irish Story--Moore's Singing--George IV. and Mr. Denman--
Strawberry Hill--Moore at Trinity College--Indian Vengeance at
Niagara--Count Woronzow--Lord Glengall's Play--The Recorder's
Report
Page 221
CHAPTER VII.
Chapter of the Bath--The Duc de Dino arrested--A Ball to the
Divan--English Policy in Greece--Sir Thomas Lawrence--
Gallatin--Court of King's Bench--Accident to the Grand Duke
Constantine--Osterley--Young Sidney Herbert--Duke of Wellington
in Office--Stapleton's 'Life of Canning'--Death of Sir Thomas
Lawrence--Leopold and the Throne of Greece--Canning's Answers
to Lord Grey--Distressed State of the Country--Canning's
Greatness and his Failings--Death of Tierney--Sir Martin Shee
President--The Duke of Wellington's Views and Conduct--The
coming Session--Moore's 'Life of Byron'--Character of Byron--
Opening of Parliament--The Fire King--The Duke of Wellington's
Speaking--The English Opera House burnt down--Lord Thurlow on
Kenyon and Buller--Old Rothschild--Lansdowne House--Earl
Stanhope--John Murray--Departure for Italy
Page 254
CHAPTER VIII.
Calais--Beau Brummell--Paris--The Polignac Ministry--Polignac and
Charles X.--The Duke of Orleans--State of Parties--Talleyrand--
Lyons--First Impressions of Mountain Scenery--Mont Cenis--
Turin--Marengo--Genoa--Road to Florence--Pisa--Florence--Lord
and Lady Burghersh--Thorwaldsen--Lord Cochrane--Rome--St.
Peter's--Frascati--Grotto Ferrata--Queen Hortense and Louis
Napoleon--Coliseum--Death of Lady Northampton--The Moses--
Gardens--Palm Sunday--Sistine Chapel--The Cardinals--Popes--
Cardinal Albani--The Farnese Palace--A Dead Cardinal--Pasquin--
Statue of Pompey--Galleries and Catacombs--Bunsen--The Papal
Benediction--Ceremonies of the Holy Week--The Grand
Penitentiary--A Confession--Protestant Cemetery--Illumination
of St. Peter's--Torlonia--Bunsen on the Forum
Page 282
CHAPTER IX.
Lake of Albano--Velletri--Naples--Rapid Travelling in 1830--A
Trial at Naples--Deciphering Manuscripts--Ball at the Duchesse
d'Eboli's--Matteis's Plot and Trial--Pompeii--Taking the Veil--
Pausilippo--Baiae--La Cava--Salerno--Paestum--Lazaroni--Museum
of Naples--Grotto del Cane--The Camaldoli--Herculaneum--
Vesuvius--Sorrento--Miracle of St. Januarius--Astroni--Farewell
to Naples
Page 331
CHAPTER X.
Moladi Gaeta--Capua--Lines on leaving Naples--Return to Rome--The
Aqueducts--'Domine, quo vadis?'--St. Peter's--The Scala Santa--
Reasons in Favour of San Gennaro--Ascent of St. Peter's--
Library of the Vatican--A racing _ex voto_--Illness of George
IV.--Approaching _Coup d'État_ in France--The Villa Mills--The
Malaria--Duc and Duchesse de Dalberg--The Emperor Nicholas on
his Accession--Cardinal Albani--A _Columbarium_--Maii--Sir
William Gell--Tivoli--Hadrian's Villa--The Adventures of Miss
Kelly and Mr. Swift--Audience of the Pope--Gibson's Studio--End
of Miss Kelly's Marriage--A Great Function--The Jesuits--
Saint-making--San Lorenzo in Lucina--The Flagellants--Statues
by Torchlight--Bunsen on the State of Rome--Frascati--Relations
of Protestant States with Rome--The French Ministry--M. de
Villèle--The Coliseum--Excommunication of a Thief--The
Passionists--The Corpus Domini--A Rash Marriage--Farewell to
Rome--Falls of Terni--Statue at Pratolino--Bologna--
Mezzofanti--Ferrara--Venice--Padua--Vicenza--Brescia--Verona--
Milan--Lago Maggiore--The Simplon--Geneva--Paris
Page 350
NOTE.
Mr. Greville's Connexion with the Turf.
A JOURNAL
of the
REIGN OF KING GEORGE THE FOURTH
CHAPTER I.
Queen Charlotte--Duchesses of Cumberland and Cambridge--
Westminster Election--Contest between Sir Francis Burdett and
Sir Murray Maxwell--London Election--Oatlands--The Duke of
York--Duchess of York--Ampthill--Tixall--Mr. Luttrell--Lady
Granville--Teddesley--Macao--Burleigh--Middleton--Lady Jersey--
The New Parliament--Tierney and Pitt--Princess Lieven--Madame
de Staël on the French Revolution--Westminster Election--
Hobhouse Defeated--Scarlett's Maiden Speech--Influence of
Party--Play--The Persian Ambassador at Court--Prince Leopold--
Woburn--Anecdote of the Allies--Death of George III.--Illness
of George IV.--Queen Caroline--Fleury de Chabaulon--The Cato
Street Conspiracy--George IV. at Ascot--Marchioness of
Conyngham--Queen Caroline in London--Message to Parliament--
Debates--Insubordination in the Guards--Wilberforce's Motion--
Proceedings against the Queen--'Les Liaisons dangereuses'--The
Queen's Trial--The Duke of Wellington on the Battle of Waterloo
and the Occupation of Paris.
1818.
I began to keep a Journal some time ago, and, after continuing it
irregularly, dropped it entirely. I have since felt tempted to
resume it, because, having frequent opportunities of mixing in
the society of celebrated men, some particulars about them might
be interesting hereafter.
[Page Head: LAST YEARS OF THE REGENCY.]
June 7th, 1818 {p.001}
The dissolution of Parliament is deferred on account of the
mistakes which have been made in passing the Alien Bill. On
Friday night the exultation of the Opposition was very great at
what they deemed a victory over the Ministers. It is said that
there will be 100 contests, and that Government will lose twenty
or thirty members. The Queen was so ill on Friday evening that
they expected she would die. She had a severe spasm.[1]
[1] [Queen Charlotte, consort of George III., died on the
17th of November of this year, 1818.]
The Duchess of Cambridge[2] has been received in a most
flattering manner here, and it is said that the Duchess of
Cumberland is severely mortified at the contrast between her
reception and that of her sister-in-law. On the Sunday after her
arrival the Duke took her to walk in the Park, when she was so
terrified by the pressure of the mob about her that she nearly
fainted away.
[2] [Prince Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, seventh
son of George III., married on the 7th of May, 1818,
Augusta Wilhelmina Louisa, Princess of Hesse, youngest
daughter of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. Ernest, Duke
of Cumberland, the King's fourth son, married on the
29th of August, 1815, at Strelitz, the Princess
Frederica, third daughter of the Duke of
Mecklenburg-Strelitz. This lady had been twice married
before, first to Prince Frederic Louis Charles of
Prussia, and secondly to the Prince of Salms-Braunfels.
As the Duchess of Cumberland had been divorced from her
last husband, the Queen received her with great
coldness; and the position in which she was placed
contrasted strongly with that of the Duchess of
Cambridge on her marriage.]
The Regent drives in the Park every day in a tilbury, with his
groom sitting by his side; grave men are shocked at this
undignified practice.
June 21st, 1818 {p.002}
I dined at Holland House last Thursday. The party consisted of
Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Frere, and Mrs. Tierney and her son. After
dinner Mr. Frere repeated to us a great deal of that part of
'Whistlecraft' which is not yet published.[3] I laughed whenever
I could, but as I have never read the first part, and did not
understand the second, I was not so much amused as the rest of
the company.
[3] [The whole poem of 'Whistlecraft' has since been
republished in the collected works of the Right Hon.
Hookham Frere.]
On Friday I went to the Stud-house, where a great party was
assembled to see the stock and buy them. After visiting the
paddocks, Bloomfield[4] gave a magnificent dinner to the company
in a tent near the house; it was the finest feast I ever saw, but
the badness of the weather spoilt the entertainment.
[4] [Sir Benjamin Bloomfield filled the offices of Marshal
and Chief Equerry to the Regent, and in 1817 he became
Receiver-General of the Duchy of Cornwall and Keeper of
the Privy Purse to the Prince. The Stud-house of
Hampton Court had been given him as a residence. He was
raised to the peerage in 1825.]
The Queen's illness was occasioned by information which she
received of the Duchesses of Cumberland and Cambridge having met
and embraced. This meeting took place as if by accident, but
really by appointment, in Kew Gardens; and the Duke of Cambridge
himself informed the Queen of it. She was in such a rage that the
spasm was brought on, and she was very near dying.
[Page Head: A GENERAL ELECTION.]
June 24th, 1818 {p.003}
The elections are carried on with great violence, and every day
we hear of fresh contests being in agitation. The disgraceful
scenes which have taken place in Westminster excite universal
shame and indignation. The mob seem to have shaken off the
feelings and the usual character of Englishmen, and in the brutal
attacks which they have made on Captain Maxwell have displayed
the savage ferocity which marked the mobs of Paris in the worst
times. He has been so much hurt that his life is now in danger.
Sir F. Burdett told me this morning that as soon as he was at the
head of the poll he thought he should appear upon the hustings
and thank the people for having raised him thus high. It is
supposed that Burdett has laid out £10,000. on this election,
though his friends do not acknowledge that he has spent anything.
It is clear that the open houses, cockades, and bands of music we
have seen these three days were not procured for nothing.
Lord Castlereagh went to the hustings, and voted for Sir Murray
Maxwell; he was hooted, pelted, and got off with some difficulty.
His Lordship's judgment was not very conspicuous on this
occasion; both Sir Murray's friends and enemies are of opinion
that Lord Castlereagh's vote did him a great deal of harm and
turned many men against him. The severest contests will be in
Wiltshire, Herefordshire, Devonshire, and Lincolnshire. The
elections are going against Government generally; in London
particularly, as the Ministers lose one seat in the Borough and
two in the City. This last election is the most unexpected of
all. Curtis has been member for twenty-eight years, and has been
used to come in very high on the poll. On this occasion the
contest between him and Alderman Thorpe was severe, but Curtis
would have carried it had not Wood and Waithman coalesced with
Thorpe the last day, and thrown their spare votes over to him;
this determined the election in his favour.[5]
[5] [Sir William Curtis was the Ministerial candidate in
the City of London; he was thrown out, and Messrs.
Wood, Waithman, Wilson, and Thorpe were returned.]
June 30th, 1818 {p.004}
There was an affray yesterday afternoon in Covent Garden. Sir
Murray Maxwell's people paraded about a large boat drawn by six
horses. Burdett's mob attacked and demolished the boat, and this
action having raised their spirits, the contest continued. The
consequence was that a large party of Horse Guards were marched
into Covent Garden, and paraded there during the rest of the
night. The people expressed their discontent by cries of 'This is
what they call freedom of election!' 'Burdett for ever!' &c.[6]
[6] [The Westminster election terminated as follows:--Sir
Samuel Romilly, 5,339; Sir Francis Burdett, 5,238; Sir
Murray Maxwell, 4,808; Henry Hunt, 84.]
August 4th, 1818 {p.004}
I went to Oatlands[7] on Saturday. There was a very large party--
Mr. and Mrs. Burrell, Lord Alvanley, Berkeley Craven, Cooke,
Arthur Upton, Armstrong, Foley, Lord Lauderdale, Lake, Page, Lord
Yarmouth. We played at whist till four in the morning. On Sunday
we amused ourselves with eating fruit in the garden, and shooting
at a mark with pistols, and playing with the monkeys. I bathed in
the cold bath in the grotto, which is as clear as crystal and as
cold as ice. Oatlands is the worst managed establishment in
England; there are a great many servants, and nobody waits on
you; a vast number of horses, and none to ride or drive.
[7] [Oatlands Park, Weybridge, at that time the residence
of the Duke of York.]
[Page Head: DUKE AND DUCHESS OF YORK.]
August 15th, 1818 {p.004}
The parties at Oatlands take place every Saturday, and the guests
go away on Monday morning. These parties begin as soon as the
Duchess leaves London, and last till the October meetings. During
the Egham races there is a large party which remains there from
the Saturday before the races till the Monday se'nnight
following; this is called the Duchess's party, and she invites
the guests. The Duke is only there himself from Saturday to
Monday. There are almost always the same people, sometimes more,
sometimes less. We dine at eight, and sit at table till eleven.
In about a quarter of an hour after we leave the dining-room the
Duke sits down to play at whist, and never stirs from the table
as long as anybody will play with him. When anybody gives any
hint of being tired he will leave off, but if he sees no signs of
weariness in others he will never stop himself. He is equally
well amused whether the play is high or low, but the stake he
prefers is fives and ponies.[8] The Duchess generally plays also
at half-crown whist. The Duke always gets up very early, whatever
time he may go to bed. On Sunday morning he goes to church,
returns to a breakfast of tea and cold meat, and afterwards rides
or walks till the evening. On Monday morning he always sets off
to London at nine o'clock. He sleeps equally well in a bed or in
a carriage. The Duchess seldom goes to bed, or, if she does, only
for an hour or two; she sleeps dressed upon a couch, sometimes in
one room, sometimes in another. She frequently walks out very
late at night, or rather early in the morning, and she always
sleeps with open windows. She dresses and breakfasts at three
o'clock, afterwards walks out with all her dogs, and seldom
appears before dinner-time. At night, when she cannot sleep, she
has women to read to her. The Duchess of York[9] is clever and
well-informed; she likes society and dislikes all form and
ceremony, but in the midst of the most familiar intercourse she
always preserves a certain dignity of manner. Those who are in
the habit of going to Oatlands are perfectly at their ease with
her, and talk with as much freedom as they would to any other
woman, but always with great respect. Her mind is not perhaps the
most delicate; she shows no dislike to coarseness of sentiment or
language, and I have seen her very much amused with jokes,
stories, and allusions which would shock a very nice person. But
her own conversation is never polluted with anything the least
indelicate or unbecoming. She is very sensible to little
attentions, and is annoyed if anybody appears to keep aloof from
her or to shun conversing with her. Her dogs are her greatest
interest and amusement, and she has at least forty of various
kinds. She is delighted when anybody gives her a dog, or a
monkey, or a parrot, of all of which she has a vast number; it is
impossible to offend her or annoy her more than by ill-using any
of her dogs, and if she were to see anybody beat or kick any one
of them she would never forgive it. She has always lived on good
terms with the Royal Family, but is intimate with none of them,
and goes as little as possible to Court. The Regent dislikes her,
and she him. With the Princess Charlotte she was latterly very
intimate, spent a great deal of time at Claremont, and felt her
death very severely. The Duchess has no taste for splendour or
magnificence, and likes to live the life of a private individual
as much as possible.
[8] [Five-pound points and twenty-five pounds on the
rubber.]
[9] [The Duchess of York was born Princess Royal of
Prussia; she married the Duke of York in 1791, and died
on the 6th of August, 1820.]
[Page Head: DUKE AND DUCHESS OF YORK.]
The Duke of York is not clever, but he has a justness of
understanding, which enables him to avoid the errors into which
most of his brothers have fallen, and which have made them so
contemptible and unpopular. Although his talents are not
rated high, and in public life he has never been honourably
distinguished, the Duke of York is loved and respected. He is the
only one of the Princes who has the feelings of an English
gentleman; his amiable disposition and excellent temper have
conciliated for him the esteem and regard of men of all parties,
and he has endeared himself to his friends by the warmth and
steadiness of his attachments, and from the implicit confidence
they all have in his truth, straightforwardness, and sincerity.
He delights in the society of men of the world and in a life of
gaiety and pleasure. He is very easily amused, and particularly
with jokes full of coarseness and indelicacy; the men with whom
he lives most are _très-polissons_, and _la polissonnerie_ is the
_ton_ of his society. But his aides-de-camp and friends, while
they do not scruple to say everything before and to him, always
treat him with attention and respect. The Duke and the Duchess
live upon the best terms; their manner to one another is cordial,
and while full of mutual respect and attention, they follow
separately their own occupations and amusements without
interfering with one another. Their friends are common to both,
and those who are most attached to the Duke are equally so to the
Duchess. One of her few foibles is an extreme tenaciousness of
her authority at Oatlands; one way in which this is shown is in
the stable, where, although there are always eight or ten
carriage-horses which seldom do any work, it is impossible ever
to procure a horse to ride or drive, because the Duchess
appropriates them all to herself. The other day one of the
aides-de-camp (Cooke) wanted to drive Burrell (who was there) to
Hampton Court; he spoke of this at breakfast, and the Duke
hearing it, desired he would take the curricle and two Spanish
horses which had been given to him. The Duchess, however, chose
to call these horses hers and to consider them as her own. The
curricle came to the door, and just as they were going to mount
it a servant came from the Duchess (who had heard of it) and told
the coachman that her Royal Highness knew nothing of it, had not
ordered it, and that the curricle must go home, which it
accordingly did.
September 3rd, 1818 {p.007}
I went to Oatlands for the Egham races. The party lasted more
than a week; there was a great number of people, and it was very
agreeable. Erskine was extremely mad; he read me some of his
verses, and we had a dispute upon religious subjects one morning,
which he finished by declaring his entire disbelief in the Mosaic
history. We played at whist every night that the Duke was there,
and I always won. The Duchess was unwell most of the time. We
showed her a _galanterie_ which pleased her very much. She
produced a picture of herself one evening, which she said she was
going to send to the Duchess of Orleans; we all cried out, said
it was bad, and asked her why she did not let Lawrence paint her
picture, and send a miniature copied from that. She declared she
could not afford it; we then said, if she would sit, we would pay
for the picture, which she consented to do, when all the men
present signed a paper, desiring that a picture should be painted
and a print taken from it of her Royal Highness. Lawrence is to
be invited to Oatlands at Christmas to paint the picture. The men
who subscribe are Culling Smith, Alvanley, B. Craven, Worcester,
Armstrong, A. Upton, Rogers, Luttrell, and myself, who were
present. The Duchess desired that Greenwood and Taylor might be
added. From Oatlands I went to Cirencester, where I stayed a week
and then returned to Oatlands, expecting to find the Queen dead
and the house empty, but I found the party still there.
Ampthill,[10] September 9th, 1818 {p.008}
I rode down here to-day, Alvanley and Montrond came in a chaise
and four, and were only three hours and three-quarters coming
from town. Luttrell and Rogers are here. The dinner very bad,
because the cook is out of humour. The evening passed off
heavily.
[10] [Ampthill Park, at that time the seat of Lord and Lady
Holland, who had inherited it from the Earl of Upper
Ossory. On the death of Lady Holland Ampthill was
purchased by the Duke of Bedford, and has since been
inhabited by Lord and Lady Wensleydale.]
Ampthill, September 11th, 1818 {p.008}
The Duke and Duchess of San Carlos came yesterday with their two
daughters, one of whom is fourteen and the other twelve or
thirteen years old. The eldest is betrothed to the Count
Altimira, a boy of seventeen years old, son of one of the richest
Spanish grandees. He has £70,000 a year. The Duke of Medina-Coeli
before the French invasion had £215,000 a year.
Lord Holland was talking to Mr. Fox the day after the debate on
the war (after the Peace of Amiens) about public speakers, and
mentioned Sheridan's speech on the Begums. Fox said, 'You may
rest assured that that speech was the finest that ever was made
in Parliament.' Lord Holland said, 'It is very well of you to say
so, but I think your speech last night was a pretty good one.'
Fox said, 'And that was a devilish fine speech too.'
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF MR. LUTTRELL.]
Teddesley, November 30th, 1818 {p.009}
I went to Tixall[11] on Tuesday, the 10th of November. There were
Luttrell, Nugent, Montagu, Granville Somerset (who went away the
next day), and afterwards Granville Vernon, Wilmot, and Mr.
Donald. I never remember so agreeable a party--'le bon goût, les
ris, l'aimable liberté.' Everybody was pleased because each did
what he pleased, and the tone of the society was gay, simple, and
clever.
[11] [Tixall, the seat of Sir Clifford Constable in
Staffordshire, was let at this time to Lord and Lady
Granville.]
It is hardly possible to live with a more agreeable man than
Luttrell. He is difficult to please, but when pleased and in good
spirits, full of vivacity. He has a lively imagination, a great
deal of instruction, and a very retentive memory, a memory
particularly happy for social purposes, for he recollects a
thousand anecdotes, fine allusions, odd expressions, or happy
remarks, applicable to the generality of topics which fall under
discussion. He is extremely sensitive, easily disconcerted, and
resents want of tact in others, because he is so liable to suffer
from any breach of it. A sceptic in religion, and by no means
austere in morals, he views with indulgence all faults except
those which are committed against society, but he looks upon a
bore with unconcealed aversion. He is attached to a few persons
whose talents he respects and whose society he covets, but
towards the world in general he is rather misanthropical, and
prides himself upon being free from the prejudices which he
ridicules and despises more or less in everybody else. Detesting
the importance and the superiority which are assumed by those who
have only riches or rank to boast of, he delights in London,
where such men find their proper level, and where genius and
ability always maintain an ascendancy over pomp, vanity, and the
adventitious circumstances of birth or position. Born in
mystery,[12] he has always shrouded himself in a secresy which
none of his acquaintance have ever endeavoured to penetrate. He
has connections, but they are unknown or only guessed at. He has
occupations, amusements, and interests unconnected with the
society in which he publicly moves. Of these he never speaks, and
no one ever ventures to ask him any questions. Ostensibly he has
no friend. Standing thus alone in the world, he derives but
little of his happiness from others; and he seems to delight in
the independence of his feelings as well as of his situation. He
is very witty and says excellent things, brilliant in general
society and pleasant in _tête-à-tête._ Many men infinitely less
clever _converse_ more agreeably than he does, because he is too
epigrammatic, and has accustomed himself so much to make
brilliant observations that he cannot easily descend to quiet,
unlaboured talk. This only applies to him when in general
society; when alone with another person he talks as agreeably as
possible.
[12] [Mr. Luttrell was believed to be a natural son of Lord
Carhampton. He had sat in the last Irish Parliament
before the Union, and died about 1855 at a very
advanced age.]
Nugent is clever, and in many respects a more amiable companion
than Luttrell, though very inferior to him in ability. He is
well-informed, gentlemanlike, sensible, with good manners, good
taste, and has a talent for music; he is always in good humour,
and discriminating without being difficult.
Lady Granville[13] has a great deal of genial humour, strong
feelings, enthusiasm, delicacy, refinement, good taste, _naïveté_
which just misses being affectation, and a _bonhomie_ which
extends to all around her.
[13] [Henrietta Elizabeth, daughter of William, fifth Duke
of Devonshire, married in 1809 to Lord Granville
Leveson Gower, created Viscount Granville in 1815, and
Earl Granville in 1833, during his embassy at the Court
of France.]
Nothing could exceed the agreeableness of the life we led at
Tixall. We breakfasted about twelve or later, dined at seven,
played at whist and macao the whole evening, and went to bed at
different hours between two and four. 'Nous faisions la bonne
chère, ce qui ajoute beaucoup à l'agrément de la société. Je ne
dis pas ceci par rapport à mes propres goûts; mais parce que je
l'ai observé, et que les philosophes n'y sont pas plus indifférents
que les bons vivants.'
[Page Head: PARTY AT TIXALL.]
When the party at Tixall was over we all removed to Teddesley.
Littleton[14] is good-natured, liberal, hospitable, and anxious
to oblige, but he wants tact, and his table is more copious than
refined. The house is ugly and in an ugly situation; the rooms
are small, but not ill furnished. The dinners were not good, and
Luttrell and Nugent were both very angry at the badness of the
fare. We had a brilliant _chasse_. Luttrell left Teddesley on
Monday, the Granvilles on Sunday, and Nugent and I on Tuesday; we
travelled together to Oxford. He is very agreeable, full of
information, and has a great facility in expressing himself. We
parted at Oxford. I went to Redrice, and came to town on Sunday.
[14] [Edward Littleton, Esq., at that time M.P. for the
county of Stafford; raised to the Privy Council in
1833, when he became Chief Secretary for Ireland, and
to the peerage under the title of Baron Hatherton in
1835.]
Tixall was the most agreeable party I ever was at. We were all
pleased and satisfied; we played at whist, and afterwards at
macao. Littleton was the greatest winner and Lord Granville the
loser. I wrote a description of the macao in verse:--
_MACAO_
The solemn chime from out the ancient tower[15]
Invites to Macao at th' accustomed hour.
The welcome summons heard, around the board
Each takes his seat and counts his iv'ry hoard.
'Tis strange to see how in the early rounds
The cautious punters risk their single pounds,
Till, fired with generous rage, they double stake
And offer more than prudent dealers take.
My Lady[16] through her glass with keen delight
Observes the brisk beginnings of the fight;
To some propitious, but to me unkind,
With candour owns the bias of her mind,
And asks of Fortune the severe decree
T' enrich the happy Skew,[17] to ruin me.
The fickle Goddess heard one-half the prayer,
The rest was melted into empty air;
For while she smiled complacent on the Skew,[18]
On me she shed some trifling favours too.
Sure Granville's luck exceeds all other men's
Led through a sad variety of tens;[19]
The rest have sometimes eights and nines, but he
Is always followed by 'the jolly three;'[20]
But the great Skew some guardian sylph protects,
His judgment governs, and his hand directs
When to refrain, when boldly to put in
And catch with happy nine the wayward pin.[21]
The next morning Luttrell came down with, a whole paper full of
epigrams (I had been winning at macao, and had turned up five
nines in my deal):--
Why should we wonder if in Greville's verses
Each thought so brilliant and each line so terse is?
For surely he in poetry must shine
Who is, we know, so favoured by the nine.[22]
_THE JOLLY TENS._
Quoth Greville, 'The commandments are divine;
But as they're ten, I lay them on the shelf:
O could they change their number and be nine,
I'd keep them all, and keep them to myself!'
Thus we trifled life away.
[15] A clock tower.
[16] Lady Granville.
[17] E. Montagu.
[18] We gave him this nickname.
[19] Tens, ruinous at macao.
[20] Tens.
[21] The middle pin, a large gain.
[22] _Nines_ are the grand desiderata at macao.
1819.
[Page Head: LADY JERSEY.]
January 17th, 1819 {p.012}
I went to Burleigh on the 23rd of December; there was no one
there but Irby. The house disappointed me very much, but it is a
very fine showplace. I went away on the 27th to Middleton; there
were the Culling Smiths, Worcesters, Sir James Mackintosh,
Ossulstons, Nugent, &c.; it was very agreeable, and the house
extremely comfortable. Lady Jersey[23] is an extraordinary woman,
and has many good qualities; surrounded as she is by flatterers
and admirers, she is neither proud nor conceited. She is full of
vivacity, spirit, and good nature, but the wide range of her
sympathies and affections proves that she has more general
benevolence than particular sensibility in her character. She
performs all the ordinary duties of life with great correctness,
because her heart is naturally good; and she is, perhaps, from
her temperament exposed to fewer temptations than the generality
of her sex. She is deficient in passion and in softness (which
constitute the greatest charm in women), so that she excites more
of admiration than of interest; in conversation she is lively and
pleasant, without being very remarkable, for she has neither wit,
nor imagination, nor humour; her understanding is active rather
than strong, and her judgment is too often warped by prejudice to
be sound. She has a retentive memory and a restless mind,
together with a sort of intellectual arrangement, with which she
appears rather to have been gifted by nature than to have derived
it from the cultivation of her reasoning faculties.
[23] [Sarah Sophia, eldest daughter of John, tenth Earl of
Westmoreland, and heiress of Robert Child, Esq., of
Osterley Park, her maternal grandfather.]
I went from Middleton to Oatlands. The Duke was not there. We had
the Smiths, Worcesters, Alvanley, Stanhope, Rogers, Luttrell,
George Dawson, Lord Lauderdale, &c. Lord Erskine was ill, and
Lord Lauderdale was taking care of him. The house was very
uncomfortable, and the room I was in small, noisy, and inconvenient.
I came to London on Friday last. Parliament having met on the
Thursday, it is very full, and is filling more and more every
day. The Opposition expect to divide 180 on the Bank question;
they talk of re-establishing the dinners which they used to have
in Fox's time.
Rogers is in a nervous state about his poem, and trembles at the
reviewers.[24]
[24] [Rogers' poem entitled 'Human Life' was on the eve of
publication. The reviewers treated it more tenderly
than it deserved, as appears below.]
January 28th, 1819 {p.013}
I went to Gorhambury on the 24th to shoot. The Duke of York was
there. We should have had a brilliant _chasse_, but it rained. We
went out at three and killed 105 pheasants.
There has been some skirmishing in the House of Commons,
particularly the night before last, on Dr. Halloran's petition,
when the Opposition (Bennet _duce_) got completely beaten. Many
of the new members have spoken, but Mr. Lawson, a _soi-disant_
wit, and Sir R. Wilson have failed lamentably. It is odd enough
that Wilson made a reply to an attack which Cobbett had inserted
in one of his papers upon him. Cobbett said that he would make a
silly speech in Parliament and destroy himself, and it is just
what he did. The Opposition were very angry with Sir J. Coffin,
who, with the candour of a novice, had made himself informed of
the facts of the petition, and finding they were against his
friends, said so in the House.
Arbuthnot told me some particulars about Tierney. He began by
being a friend of Mr. Pitt, and in one of his speeches on the
Southwark or Colchester election he praised him in opposition to
Mr. Fox. This latter never liked him, and the Regent assured
Arbuthnot he had letters of Tierney in his possession thanking
him for having endeavoured to remove Mr. Fox's antipathy to him.
When Addington came in, Pitt advised him to get Tierney, as
nobody would be so useful to him. He did accordingly, and so
Tierney became a member of the Administration.[25] When Pitt came
again into office a negotiation was opened with him through the
medium of Charles Long. He was offered the Chief Secretaryship in
Ireland, which he wished to have, but he made it a condition that
he should not be in Parliament. To this Mr. Pitt would not agree,
as he said that he must commit himself with them entirely or not
join them at all; he refused, not choosing to commit himself, and
the negotiations broke off.
[25] [Right Hon. George Tierney, Treasurer of the Navy and
P.C. in 1803. President of the Board of Control in
October, 1806, Member of the Mint in 1827.]
January 31st, 1819 {p.014}
I dined with Lady Bathurst yesterday. We talked of the
approaching contests in Parliament, and she said that she felt
more apprehensive now than ever she had done for the safety of
the Government, that it was impossible for Ministers to stay in
if they were defeated, as they had occasionally been in the last
Parliament, and that if they were defeated she should attribute
it all to Vansittart, who is a millstone about their necks. I
asked why they did not get rid of him, and she said that it was
from good-nature; they had scruples about telling him he was
inefficient and must resign. She said that Canning's conduct had
been so good towards them, they were very anxious to put him in
some more considerable office.
[Page Head: PRINCESS LIEVEN.]
February 3rd, 1819 {p.015}
I went with Bouverie to Newmarket on Monday to look at the
horses. On Wednesday I came to town and went on to Oatlands.
Madame de Lieven was there. This woman is excessively clever, and
when she chooses brilliantly agreeable. She is beyond all people
fastidious. She is equally conscious of her own superiority and
the inferiority of other people, and the contempt she has for the
understandings of the generality of her acquaintance has made her
indifferent to please and incapable of taking any delight in
general society. Her manners are very dignified and graceful, and
she is extremely accomplished. She sometimes endeavours to assume
popular and gracious manners, but she does this languidly and
awkwardly, because it is done with an effort. She carries _ennui_
to such a pitch that even in the society of her most intimate
friends she frequently owns that she is bored to death. She
writes memoirs, or rather a journal, of all that falls under her
observation. She is so clever, has so much imagination and
penetration, that they must be very entertaining. She writes as
well as talks with extraordinary ease and gracefulness, and both
her letters and her conversation are full of point; yet she is
not liked, and has made hardly any friends. Her manners are
stately and reserved, and so little _bonhomie_ penetrates through
her dignity that few feel sufficiently attracted to induce them
to try and thaw the ice in which she always seems bound.[26]
[26] [A very imperfect character of Princess Lieven, with
whom Mr. Greville was at this time but slightly
acquainted. But in after years he became one of her
most intimate and confidential friends, and she
frequently reappears in the course of these memoirs.]
February 5th, 1819 {p.016}
I have finished Madame de Staël's 'Considérations sur la
Révolution Française.' It is the best of her works, extremely
eloquent, containing the soundest political opinions conveyed in
a bold and eloquent style. It is perhaps too philosophical
and not sufficiently relieved by anecdotes and historical
illustrations. Her defence of her father is written with much
enthusiasm and great plausibility, but the judgment of the world
concerning Necker is formed, and it is too late to alter it. The
effect of her eloquence is rather weakened by the recollection of
her conduct to him, for she lived with him as little as possible,
because she could not bear the _ennui_ of Coppet.[27]
[27] [In the latter years of Madame de Staël's life Coppet
became one of the most brilliant social resorts in
Europe, for she attracted there the Schlegels, B.
Constant, Bonstetten, Sismondi, Byron, and a host of
other celebrities. Towards her father Madame de Staël
expressed the most passionate regard.]
February 9th, 1819 {p.016}
The Opposition are in a state of the highest exultation on
account of the division in the House of Commons last night on
Brougham's being added to the Bank Committee. The numbers were
173 to 135. They triumph particularly in this strong minority
because the attack upon Brougham in the 'Quarterly Review' was
deemed so successful by the Ministerial party that they thought
he would not be able to lift up his head again. The review is
extremely well done, as all allow. It is supposed to be written
by Dr. Ireland [it was by Dr. Monk[28]], and that Canning
supplied the jokes, but Arbuthnot assured me he had no hand in
it.
[28] [Dr. Monk, not Dr. Ireland, was the author of the
article. Monk became Bishop of Gloucester in 1830. This
passage relates to the celebrated article on the Report
of Mr. Brougham's Committee on the Education of the
People which appeared in the 'Quarterly Review' of
December 1818. The article was a violent one, but it is
amusing to see the effects attributed to it at the
time. Some controversy has since taken place as to the
share Canning had in it. I have myself seen the letters
from Gifford (editor of the 'Review') to Dr. Monk, in
which he speaks of the additions which have been made
to the article; and there is the strongest internal
evidence that these _purpurei panni_ were added by
Canning. The subject is discussed in the 'Edinburgh
Review' for July 1858.]
February 10th, 1819 {p.016}
Wilberforce made a speech last night which reminded one of the
better days of the House of Commons. He presented a petition from
the Quakers against the Criminal Code, and introduced a
compliment to Romilly. Castlereagh was in a minority in the
Committee concerning the equerries of the Windsor establishment;
he wished to keep two more than Tierney proposed; the latter had
eight to six in the Committee.[29]
[29] [In consequence of the death of Queen Charlotte in the
preceding month of November, the Government visited the
Windsor establishment. The Duke of York was appointed
_custos personae_ of the King, and received in that
capacity £10,000 a year, which had previously been
allowed to the Queen. A debate took place on this
subject on the 25th of February, which is referred to
by Mr. Greville under that date.]
February 14th, 1819 {p.017}
George Lamb has been proposed in opposition to Hobhouse.[30] The
latter drew this opposition upon himself by his speech, and still
more by the reports of his Committee, in which they abused the
Whigs in unmeasured terms. Lambton went to Hobhouse and asked him
if he would disavow the abuse of Lord Grey, which his Committee
had inserted in the document they printed; he refused, on which
the opposition was determined upon and begun. McDonald proposed
Lamb, but they would not hear him; Evans seconded him. G. Jones
made a very good speech in proposing Cartwright. Burdett and
Kinnaird both spoke with moderation in proposing Hobhouse. It is
generally supposed that Lamb will win.
[30] [The death of Sir Samuel Romilly in November 1818
caused a vacancy in the representation of Westminster,
and another election took place upon the meeting of
Parliament. The numbers were: Hon. George Lamb, 4,465;
John Cam Hobhouse, 3,861; Major Cartwright, 38.]
Rogers' poem is disliked; the cry is all against it; some of the
lines are pretty, but it is not perspicuous enough, and is
deficient in novelty and force.
[Page Head: WESTMINSTER ELECTION.]
February 18th, 1819 {p.017}
Yesterday Lamb was only seven behind Hobhouse on the poll;
everybody thinks he is sure to win, even if Burdett should come
forward with money. The day before there was great uproar and
much abuse on the hustings. Burdett made a shameful speech full
of blasphemy and Jacobinism, but he seems to have lost his
popularity in a great measure even with the blackguards of
Westminster. Hobhouse yesterday was long and dull; he did not
speak like a clever man, and if the people would have heard Lamb,
and he has any dexterity in reply, he must have crushed him--it
was so answerable a speech.
I went to the Berrys[31] in the evening, where the blues and the
wits were assembled; as Sidney Smith said, 'the conversation
raged,' but there was nothing remarkably entertaining.
[31] [Miss Berry's well-known _salon_, No. 8 Curzon Street,
which was for more than a half a century the resort of
the best company in London.]
[Page Head: PARTY SPIRIT.]
February 25th, 1819 {p.018}
The debate on the £10,000 to the Duke of York on Monday produced
four very good speeches--Peel and the Solicitor-General on one
part, and Tierney and Scarlett[32] on the other. This latter
spoke for the first time, and in reply to the two former. The
Opposition came to Brookes' full of admiration of his speech,
which is said to be the best _first speech_ that ever was made in
the House of Commons. I, who hear all parties and care for none,
have been amused with the different accounts of the debate; one
man says Peel's speech was the best of the night and the finest
that has been made in the House for a length of time; another
prefers the Solicitor-General's; then on the other side it is
said that Tierney was excellent, Mr. Scarlett beyond all praise.
The friends of Government allow great merit to the two latter
speakers, but declare that Peel was unanswerable, besides having
been beautifully eloquent, and that Scarlett's speech was a
fallacy from beginning to end. Again I am told Peel was not good;
his was a speech for effect, evidently prepared, showy, but not
argumentative; Scarlett triumphantly refuted all his reasoning.
Thus it is that a fair judgment is never formed upon any
question; the spirit of party influences every man's opinions. It
is not extraordinary that each individual of a party connected by
general similarity of opinion should adhere to the great body,
even in cases where he may not happen to agree with them, and
excellent reasons may be adduced for his sacrificing his own view
for the great object of unanimity; but it is very improbable that
on a particular question, unconnected with any general system,
where arguments are adduced from opposite sides, and submitted to
the enlightened judgment of an assembly, the same arguments which
are looked upon as satisfactory and unanswerable by one set of
men should be deemed without exception utterly fallacious by
another. If any proof were requisite of the mighty influence of
party spirit, it would be found in a still stronger light in the
State trials in the House of Lords. I have in my mind the trial
of Lord Melville; when each Peer had to deliver his judicial
opinion upon the evidence adduced in a matter so solemn, and in
the discharge of a duty so sacred, it might be imagined that all
party feelings would be laid aside, and that a mature judgment
and an enlightened conscience would alone have regulated the
conduct of every individual. Yet either by an extraordinary
accident or by the influence of party spirit we beheld all the
Peers on the Ministerial side of the House declaring Lord
Melville innocent, and all those of the Opposition pronouncing
him guilty.
[32] [Sir James Scarlett, afterwards Lord Abinger and Lord
Chief Baron. It is remarkable that his first speech in
the House of Commons was delivered on the Whig side of
the House. He afterwards became a decided Tory.]
March 5th, 1819 {p.019}
George Lamb was to have been chaired on the day he was elected,
but the mob was outrageous and would not suffer it. They broke
into his committee room, and he and McDonald were forced to creep
out of a two pair of stairs window into the churchyard. His
partisans, who assembled on horseback, were attacked and pelted,
and forced to retreat after receiving many hard knocks. In the
evening the mob paraded the town, and broke the windows of Lord
Castlereagh's and Lord Sefton's houses.
The other night Sir James Mackintosh[33] made a splendid speech
on the Criminal Laws; it was temperate and eloquent, and excited
universal admiration. The Ministerial party spoke as highly of it
as the Opposition themselves. Last night Canning moved the thanks
to Lord Hastings, and they say it was the finest speech he ever
made, in the best taste, the clearest narrative, and the most
beautiful language.
[33] [Sir James Mackintosh's motion for the appointment of a
Committee on Capital Punishments was carried against
the Government on the 2nd of March by 148 to 128.]
June 12th, 1819 {p.020}
I have been at Oatlands for the Ascot party. On the course I did
nothing. Ever since the Derby ill fortune has pursued me, and I
cannot win anywhere. Play is a detestable occupation; it absorbs
all our thoughts and renders us unfit for everything else in
life. It is hurtful to the mind and destroys the better feelings;
it incapacitates us for study and application of every sort; it
makes us thoughtful and nervous; and our cheerfulness depends
upon the uncertain event of our nightly occupation. How anyone
can play who is not in want of money I cannot comprehend; surely
his mind must be strangely framed who requires the stimulus of
gambling to heighten his pleasures. Some indeed may have become
attached to gaming from habit, and may not wish to throw off the
habit from the difficulty of finding fresh employment for the
mind at an advanced period of life. Some may be unfitted by
nature or taste for society, and for such gaming may have a
powerful attraction. The mind is excited; at the gaming-table all
men are equal; no superiority of birth, accomplishments, or
ability avail here; great noblemen, merchants, orators, jockies,
statesmen, and idlers are thrown together in levelling confusion;
the only pre-eminence is that of success, the only superiority
that of temper. But why does a man play who is blessed with
fortune, endowed with understanding, and adorned with accomplishments
which might ensure his success in any pursuit which taste or
fancy might incite him to follow? It is contrary to reason, but
we see such instances every day. The passion of play is not
artificial; it must have existed in certain minds from the
beginning; at least some must have been so constituted that they
yield at once to the attraction, and enter with avidity into a
pursuit in which other men can never take the least interest.
June 14th, 1819 {p.020}
The other night in the House of Commons on the Foreign Enlistment
Bill Sir James Mackintosh made a brilliant speech; all parties
agree in commending it. Canning answered him, but not successfully.
The Duke of Wellington told me on Friday that there was a good
debate in the House of Lords the night before on the Catholic
question, but he thought his side had the worst of it; he
acknowledged that Lord Grey's speech had done much to shake his
opinion, and that he had not conceived that his propositions
would have been framed in so unobjectionable a manner.[34]
[34] [On the 10th of June Earl Grey submitted to the House
of Lords a Bill to relieve Roman Catholics from taking
the declaratory oaths against Transubstantiation and
the Invocation of Saints. On this occasion, for the
first time, Lord Grenville supported the Catholic
claims. But the Bill was thrown out by 141 to 92.]
[Page Head: PERSIAN AMBASSADOR AND THE REGENT.]
June 25th, 1819 {p.021}
The Persian Ambassador has had a quarrel with the Court. He
wanted to have precedence over all other Ambassadors, and because
this was not allowed he was affronted and would not go to Court.
This mark of disrespect was resented, and it was signified to him
that his presence would be dispensed with at Carlton House, and
that the Ministers could no longer receive him at their houses.
On Sunday last the Regent went to Lady Salisbury's, where he met
the Persian, who, finding he had given offence, had made a sort
of apology, and said that illness had prevented him from going to
Court. The Regent came up to him and said, 'Well, my good friend,
how are you? I hope you are better?' He said, 'Oh, sir, I am very
well, but I am very sorry I offended your Royal Highness by not
going to Court. Now, sir, my Sovereign he tell me to go first,
and your Congress, about which I know nothing, say I must go
last; now this very bad for me (pointing to his head) when I go
back to Persia.' The Regent said, 'Well, my good friend, never
mind it now; it does not signify.' He answered, 'Oh yes, sir; but
your Royal Highness still angry with me, and you have not asked
me to your party to-morrow night.' The Regent laughed and said,
'I was only going to have a few children to dance, but if you
like to come I shall be very happy to see you.' Accordingly he
went to Carlton House, and they are very good friends again.
August 11th, 1819 {p.021}
The Vice-Chancellor was going to Italy, but his journey is
stopped, as he says, because the Prince Regent has desired him to
stay in England in consequence of the approaching return of the
Princess of Wales.
August 30th, 1819 {p.022}
I am just returned from Oatlands; we had an immense party, the
most numerous ever known there. The Duchess wished it to have
been prolonged, but there were no funds. The distress they are in
is inconceivable. When the Duchess came down there was no water
in the house. She asked the reason, and was informed that the
water came by pipes from St. George's Hill, which were stopped up
with sand; and as the workmen were never paid, they would not
clear them out. She ordered the pipes to be cleared and the bills
brought to her, which was done. On Thursday there was a great
distress, as the steward had no money to pay the tradespeople,
and the Duke was prevailed on with great difficulty to produce a
small sum for the purpose. The house is nearly in ruins.
December 24th, 1819 {p.022}
The Duke of Kent gave the name of Alexandrina to his daughter[35]
in compliment to the Emperor of Russia. She was to have had the
name of Georgiana, but the Duke insisted upon Alexandrina being
her first name. The Regent sent for Lieven and made him a great
many compliments (_en le persiflant_) on the Emperor's being
godfather, but informed him that the name of Georgiana could be
second to no other in this country, and therefore she could not
bear it at all.
[35] [The Princess, afterwards Queen, Victoria, born 24th of
May, 1819.]
The frost is intense. The town is empty. I returned from Whersted
last Wednesday se'nnight, and went to Oatlands on Thursday; there
was nearly the same party. Prince Leopold came and dined there on
Saturday. He is very dull and heavy in his manner, and seems
overcome with the weight of his dignity. This Prince will not
succeed here; everybody is civil to him from the interest he
excited at the time of the Princess's death--an interest which
has not yet subsided. There seems to be no harm in him, but
everybody contrasts his manners with those of the Duke of York,
and the comparison is not to his advantage. The Duchess likes the
society of men of wit and letters; more, I think, from the
variety of having them around her than from any pleasure she
takes in their conversation. Lord Alvanley is the man in whom she
takes the greatest delight.
1820.
London, January 20th, 1820 {p.023}
I went last Sunday se'nnight to Woburn. The Duke of York, Duke of
Wellington, Lievens, Jerseys, Worcesters, Tavistocks, Mr.
Russell, Lady Sandwich, Alvanley, C. Smith, Huntleys, Frederick
Ponsonby, Lauderdale, and others were there. The house, place,
establishment, and manner of living are magnificent. The _chasse_
was brilliant; in five days we killed 835 pheasants, 645 hares,
59 rabbits, 10 partridges, and 5 woodcocks. The Duchess was very
civil and the party very gay. I won at whist, and liked it very
much.
January 22nd, 1820 {p.023}
Just before the advance of the allied army on Paris a council of
war was held, when it was unanimously resolved to retreat. The
Emperor of Russia entered the room, and said he had reasons for
advancing, and ordered the advance; the generals remonstrated,
but the Emperor was determined. Woronzoff told Sydenham that that
day a courier arrived at his outposts with a letter for the
Emperor in the handwriting of Talleyrand. This was told me by
Frederick Ponsonby.
[Page Head: ILLNESS OF GEORGE IV.]
February 4th, 1820 {p.023}
I returned to Woburn on Sunday. We shot the whole week and killed
an immense quantity of game; the last two days we killed 245 and
296 pheasants, 822 and 431 head. On Sunday last arrived the news
of the King's death.[36] The new King has been desperately ill.
He had a bad cold at Brighton, for which he lost eighty ounces of
blood; yet he afterwards had a severe oppression, amounting
almost to suffocation, on his chest. Halford was gone to Windsor,
and left orders with Knighton not to bleed him again till his
return. Knighton was afraid to bleed him. Bloomfield sent for
Tierney,[37] who took upon himself to take fifty ounces from him.
This gave him relief; he continued, however, dangerously ill, and
on Wednesday he lost twenty ounces more. Yesterday afternoon he
was materially better for the first time. Tierney certainly saved
his life, for he must have died if he had not been blooded.
Brougham sent a courier to the Queen immediately after the late
King's death, and gave notice at Carlton House that he had
applied for a passport for a courier to her Majesty the Queen.
[36] [King George III. died on the 20th of January, 1820.]
[37] [Sir Matthew Tierney, one of His Majesty's physicians.]
The King has given to Lady Bloomfield the Rangership of Hampton
Court Park. He wished to give it to both of them with the
survivorship, but Lord Liverpool submitted to him that the
House of Commons had pronounced so strongly their dislike to
reversionary grants that it would be unadvisable, and it was
accordingly given to Lady B. only.
February 14th, 1820 {p.024}
The Cabinet sat till past two o'clock this morning. The King
refused several times to order the Queen to be prayed for in the
alteration which was made in the Liturgy. The Ministers wished
him to suffer it to be done, but he peremptorily refused, and
said nothing should induce him to consent, whoever might ask him.
Lord Harrowby told me this last night.
[Page Head: NAPOLEON IN THE HUNDRED DAYS.]
I think Fleury's book[38] almost the most interesting memoir I
ever read; it is excessively well written, and his partiality to
Bonaparte has not blinded him to the errors he committed. This
book was wanted to bring under the same view the immediate causes
of his return to France and the situation in which he found
himself when seated on the throne. This was essentially different
from that in which he had been before his abdication; so much so
that I do not believe, if he had concluded a peace with the
Allies, he could have remained upon the throne. Not only his
civil power was reduced within very narrow limits, but his
military authority was no longer the same; men seemed to have
lost that reverential submissiveness which caused all his orders
to be so blindly and implicitly obeyed. During the height of his
power none of his generals would have dared to neglect or oppose
his orders as Ney did at the battles of the 16th of June. It is
impossible now to determine what might have been the political
result in France of the success of Bonaparte's arms had he gained
the battle of Waterloo. He would probably have made peace with
the Allies. Had he returned to Paris triumphant, he might have
dissolved the Chambers and re-established the old Imperial
Government. In such a measure he must have depended upon his army
for success. But a spirit of liberty had sprung up in France
during his absence, which seemed to be the more vigorous from
having been so long repressed. The nation, and even the army,
appear to have imbibed the principles of freedom; and if upon
this occasion Bonaparte was placed on the throne by the force of
opinion, he could not have restored the ancient despotism without
exciting universal dissatisfaction. Men seem formerly to have
been awed by a conviction of his infallibility, and did not
suffer themselves to reason upon the principles of action of a
man who dazzled their imaginations by the magnificence of his
exploits and the grandeur of his system.
[38] [M. Fleury de Chabaulon was a young _auditeur_ at the
Conseil d'État who had joined Napoleon at Elba, and
afterwards returned with him to France, when he was
attached to the Imperial Cabinet during the Hundred
Days. His memoir of that period is here referred to.]
February 20th, 1820 {p.025}
The Ministers had resigned last week because the King would not
hear reason on the subject of the Princess. It is said that he
treated Lord Liverpool very coarsely, and ordered him out of the
room. The King, they say, asked him 'if he knew to whom he was
speaking.' He replied, 'Sir, I know that I am speaking to my
Sovereign, and I believe I am addressing him as it becomes a
loyal subject to do.' To the Chancellor he said, 'My Lord, I know
your conscience always interferes except where your interest is
concerned.' The King afterwards sent for Lord Liverpool, who
refused at first to go; but afterwards, on the message being
reiterated, he went, and the King said, 'We have both been too
hasty.' This is probably all false, but it is very true that they
offered to resign.
[Page Head: THE CATO STREET CONSPIRACY.]
February 24th, 1820 {p.026}
The plot[39] which has been detected had for its object the
destruction of the Cabinet Ministers, and the chief actor in the
conspiracy was Arthur Thistlewood. I was at Lady Harrowby's last
night, and about half-past one o'clock Lord Harrowby came in and
told us the following particulars:--A plot has been in agitation
for some time past, of the existence of which, the names and
numbers of the men concerned, and of all particulars concerning
their plans, Government has been perfectly well informed. The
conspirators had intended to execute their design about last
Christmas at a Cabinet dinner at Lord Westmoreland's, but for
some reason they were unable to do so and deferred it. At length
Government received information that they were to assemble to the
number of from twenty to thirty at a house in Cato Street,
Edgware Road, and that they had resolved to execute their purpose
last night, when the Cabinet would be at dinner at Lord
Harrowby's. Dinner was ordered as usual. Men had been observed
watching the house, both in front and rear, during the whole
afternoon. It was believed that nine o'clock was the hour fixed
upon for the assault to be made. The Ministers who were expected
at dinner remained at Fife House, and at eight o'clock Mr. Birnie
with twelve constables was despatched to Cato Street to apprehend
the conspirators. Thirty-five foot guards were ordered to support
the police force. The constables arrived upon the spot a few
moments before the soldiers, and suspecting that the conspirators
had received intimation of the discovery of their plot, and were
in consequence preparing to escape, they did not wait for the
soldiers, but went immediately to the house. A man armed with a
musket was standing sentry, whom they secured. They then ascended
a narrow staircase which led to the room in which the gang were
assembled, and burst the door open. The first man who entered was
shot in the head, but was only wounded; he who followed was
stabbed by Thistlewood and killed. The conspirators then with
their swords put out the lights and attempted to escape. By this
time the soldiers had arrived. Nine men were taken prisoners;
Thistlewood and the rest escaped.
[39] [The Cato Street Conspiracy.]
March 1st, 1820 {p.027}
Thistlewood was taken the morning after the affair in Cato
Street. It was the intention of these men to have fired a rocket
from Lord Harrowby's house as soon as they had completed their
work of destruction; this was to have been the signal for the
rising of their friends. An oil shop was to have been set on fire
to increase the confusion and collect a mob; then the Bank was to
have been attacked and the gates of Newgate thrown open. The
heads of the Ministers were to have been cut off and put in a
sack which was prepared for that purpose. These are great
projects, but it does not appear they were ever in force
sufficient to put them in execution, and the mob (even if the mob
had espoused their cause, which seems doubtful), though very
dangerous in creating confusion and making havoc, are quite
inefficient for a regular operation.
June 4th, 1820 {p.027}
I went to Oatlands on Tuesday. The Duchess continues very ill;
she is not expected to recover. The King was at Ascot every day;
he generally rode on the course, and the ladies came in
carriages. One day they all rode. He was always cheered by the
mob as he went away. One day only a man in the crowd called out,
'Where's the Queen?' The Duke of Dorset was at the Cottage, and
says it was exceedingly agreeable. They kept very early hours.
The King always breakfasted with them, and Lady Conyngham looked
remarkably well in the morning, her complexion being so fine. On
Friday she said she was bored with the races and should not go;
he accordingly would not go either, and sent word to say he
should not be there. They stay there till to-morrow. In the
meantime the Queen is coming to England, and Brougham is gone to
meet her. Nobody knows what advice he intends to give her, but
everybody believes that it is his intention she should come. It
was supposed that Lady Conyngham's family (her son and brother)
had set their faces against her connection with the King; but
Lord Mount Charles was at the Cottage, and Denison was at the
levee and very well received.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S RETURN.]
June 7th, 1820 {p.028}
The Queen arrived in London yesterday at seven o'clock. I rode as
far as Greenwich to meet her. The road was thronged with an
immense multitude the whole way from Westminster Bridge to
Greenwich. Carriages, carts, and horsemen followed, preceded, and
surrounded her coach the whole way. She was everywhere received
with the greatest enthusiasm. Women waved pocket handkerchiefs,
and men shouted wherever she passed. She travelled in an open
landau, Alderman Wood sitting by her side and Lady Ann Hamilton
and another woman opposite. Everybody was disgusted at the
vulgarity of Wood in sitting in the place of honour, while the
Duke of Hamilton's sister was sitting backwards in the carriage.
The Queen looked exactly as she did before she left England, and
seemed neither dispirited nor dismayed. As she passed by White's
she bowed and smiled to the men who were in the window. The crowd
was not great in the streets through which she passed. Probably
people had ceased to expect her, as it was so much later than the
hour designated for her arrival. It is impossible to conceive the
sensation created by this event. Nobody either blames or approves
of her sudden return, but all ask, 'What will be done next? How
is it to end?' In the House of Commons there was little said; but
the few words which fell from Creevy, Bennett, or Denman seem to
threaten most stormy debates whenever the subject is discussed.
The King in the meantime is in excellent spirits, and the
Ministers affect the greatest unconcern and talk of the time it
will take to pass the Bills to 'settle her business.' 'Her
business,' as they call it, will in all probability raise such a
tempest as they will find it beyond their powers to appease; and
for all his Majesty's unconcern the day of her arrival in England
may be such an anniversary to him as he will have no cause to
celebrate with much rejoicing.[40]
[40] [On the day that the Queen landed at Dover a royal
message was sent down to Parliament, by which the King
commended to the Lords an enquiry into the conduct of
the Queen. In the House of Commons there was some
vehement speaking; and on the following day, before
Lord Castlereagh moved the address in answer to the
message, Mr. Brougham read to the House a message from
the Queen, declaring that her return to England was
occasioned by the necessity her enemies had laid upon
her of defending her character.]
June 9th, 1820 {p.029}
Brougham's speech on Wednesday is said by his friends to have
been one of the best that was ever made, and I think all agree
that it was good and effective. The House of Commons is evidently
anxious to get rid of the question if possible, for the moment
Wilberforce expressed a wish to adjourn the county members rose
one after another and so strongly concurred in that wish that
Castlereagh was obliged to consent. The mob have been breaking
windows in all parts of the town and pelting those who would not
take off their hats as they passed Wood's door. Last night Lord
Exmouth's house was assaulted and his windows broken, when he
rushed out armed with sword and pistol and drove away the mob.
Frederick Ponsonby saw him. Great sums of money have been won and
lost on the Queen's return, for there was much betting at the
clubs. The alderman showed a specimen of his taste as he came
into London; when the Queen's coach passed Carlton House he stood
up and gave three cheers.
It is odd enough Lady Hertford's windows have been broken to
pieces and the frames driven in, while no assault has been made
on Lady Conyngham's. Somebody asked Lady Hertford 'if she had
been aware of the King's admiration for Lady Conyngham,' and
'whether he had ever talked to her about Lady C.' She replied
that 'intimately as she had known the King, and openly as he had
always talked to her upon every subject, he had never ventured to
speak to her upon that of his mistresses.'
June 16th, 1820 {p.029}
The speech which Canning made on the occasion of the King's
message has been violently attacked by all parties, and is said
to have given as great dissatisfaction to the Queen as to the
King. It is not easy to discover what the Queen could have
objected to in the speech, for it was highly favourable and
flattering to her. It was generally supposed last Sunday that he
would resign in the course of the week, and bets were laid that
he would not be in office next Sunday. On Wednesday he had an
audience of the King at the levee, which lasted fifty-two minutes
by Yarmouth's watch; nobody knows what passed between them. Lord
Fitzwilliam and Lord Sefton have refused to act as negotiators
for the Queen.
There was some indiscipline manifested in a battalion of the 3rd
Guards the day before yesterday; they were dissatisfied at the
severity of their duty and at some allowances that had been taken
from them, and on coming off guard they refused to give up their
ball cartridges. They were ordered off to Plymouth, and marched
at four yesterday morning. Many people went from the ball at
Devonshire House to see them march away. Plymouth was afterwards
changed for Portsmouth in consequence of their good behaviour on
the route. Worcester[41] met many of them drunk at Brentford,
crying out, 'God save Queen Caroline!' There was some disturbance
last night in consequence of the mob assembling round the King's
mews, where the rest of the battalion that had marched to
Portsmouth still remained.
[41] [The Marquis of Worcester, afterwards seventh Duke of
Beaufort]
[Page Head: SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE QUEEN.]
June 23rd, 1820 {p.030}
I never remember to have seen the public curiosity so excited as
on Wilberforce's motion last night.[42] Nearly 520 members voted
in the House, and some went away; as many people as could gain
admission attended to hear the debate. The speaking on the
Opposition side was excellent, but as everybody differs in
opinion with regard to the comparative merit of the speakers, it
is impossible for one who was not present to form a correct
judgment on the subject. The best speeches were Brougham's,
Denman's, Burdett's, and Canning's. Denman's speech was admirable
and, all agree, most judicious and effective for his client.
Burdett's was extremely clever, particularly the first part of
it. In the meantime it is doubtful whether anything is gained by
the resolution carried last night. Public opinion seems very
equally divided as to the probability of the Queen agreeing to
the expressed or implied wish of the House of Commons, and even
if she refuses to consent to the omission of her name in the
Liturgy it seems doubtful whether the green bag will ever be
opened, so strong is the repugnance of the House of Commons to
enter upon such an investigation. It is this feeling in the House
which emboldens the Queen to hold out with the firmness and
constancy she has hitherto displayed. The House of Lords cuts a
most ridiculous figure, having precipitately agreed to go into
the Committee. They have since been obliged to put off the
investigation by repeated adjournments, in order to see what
steps the House of Commons will take. Lord Grey made an indignant
speech, last night on this very subject; they say Lord Liverpool
spoke remarkably well in reply.
[42] [Mr. Wilberforce moved an address to the Queen to stop
the investigation, by entreating her Majesty, under the
assurance of the protection of her honour by the
Commons, to yield the point of the insertion of her
name in the Liturgy. This proposal the Queen
courteously declined.]
June 25th, 1820 {p.031}
The Queen's refusal to comply with the desire of the House of
Commons keeps conjecture afloat and divides opinions as to the
opening of the bag. The Opposition call her answer a very good
one; those of the other party I have seen think it too long, and
not neatly and clearly worded. Brougham declined advising her as
to her answer; he told her she must be guided by her own
feelings, and was herself the only person capable of judging what
she had best do. The discussion of the Queen's business is now
become an intolerable nuisance in society; no other subject is
ever talked of. It is an incessant matter of argument and dispute
what will be done and what ought to be done. All people express
themselves tired of the subject, yet none talk or think of any
other. It is a great evil when a single subject of interest takes
possession of society; conversation, loses all its lightness and
variety, and every drawing-room is converted into an arena of
political disputation. People even go to talk about it from habit
long after the interest it excited has ceased.
June 27th, 1820 {p.031}
The mob was very abusive to the member who carried up the
resolution to the Queen, and called Wilberforce 'Dr. Cantwell.'
The Queen demanded to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House
of Lords. Contrary to order and contrary to expectation, the
counsel were admitted, when Brougham made a very powerful speech.
Denman began exceedingly well; Lord Holland said his first three
or four sentences were the best thing he ever heard; _si sic
omnia_, he would have made the finest speech possible; but on the
whole he was inferior to Brougham. If the House had refused to
hear her counsel, it is said that she would have gone down to-day
to the House of Lords and have demanded to be heard in person. As
usual Brougham's speech is said by many of his political
adversaries to have been weak in argument. Many, however, do him
the justice to acknowledge that it was a very powerful appeal for
his client.
June 28th, 1820 {p.032}
The debate last night in the House of Lords was excellent. Lord
Grey made a powerful speech, very much against the Queen, a
speech for office. The manager announced at Drury Lane that the
Queen would go to the play to-night. Brougham knew nothing of
this; she never told him. Mrs. Brougham told me so last night,
and that he was quite worn out with the business.[43]
[43] [The report of the Secret Committee of the Lords was
made on the 4th of July. It declared that the evidence
against the Queen was such as to demand a solemn
enquiry. The trial, or rather investigation, began on
the 17th of August. The defence was opened on the 3rd
of October, and the Bill was abandoned on the 6th of
November.]
July 6th, 1820 {p.032}
Since the report of the Secret Committee public opinion is
entirely changed as to the result of the proceedings against the
Queen. Everybody thinks the charges will be proved and that the
King will be divorced. It is impossible to discover what effect
the report may have in the country; it is certain hitherto that
all ranks of men have been decidedly favourable to the Queen, and
disbelieve the charges against her. The military in London have
shown alarming symptoms of dissatisfaction, so much so that it
seems doubtful how far the Guards can be counted upon in case of
any disturbance arising out of this subject. Luttrell says that
'the extinguisher is taking fire.'
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S TRIAL]
July 8th, 1820 {p.033}
I was in the House of Lords the night before last to hear
Brougham and Denman speak at the bar. Brougham's speech was
uncommonly clever, very insolent, and parts of it very eloquent.
A very amusing episode was furnished by the Bishop of Exeter, who
moved that the counsel should withdraw, and then asked the House
whether they were not out of order. Lord Holland cut him up in
the most beautiful style, and excited universal laughter. Nobody
came to the assistance of the Bishop, and the counsel were called
in again and resumed. Brougham's speech is reported in the
'Morning Chronicle' of yesterday word for word.
July 14th, 1820 {p.033}
I have been at Newmarket, where I had the first fortunate turn
this year. The conversation about the Queen begins to subside;
everybody seems to agree that it is a great injustice not to
allow her lists of the witnesses; the excuse that it is not usual
is bad, for the proceedings are anomalous altogether, and it is
absurd to attempt to adhere to precedent; here there are no
precedents and no analogies to guide to a decision. London is
drawing to a close, but in August it will be very full, as all
the Peers must be here. They say the trial will last six months.
Luttrell's poem[44] has succeeded. The approbation it receives is
general but qualified; in fact, it was difficult to make such a
sketch of life and manners sufficiently piquant without the
infusion of a little satire, and his fear of giving offence has
induced him to be so good-natured that he is occasionally rather
insipid. 'Il y a des tracasseries de société.' I cannot record
them, though perhaps years hence, when I may look over what I now
write, I might be amused with stories of long-forgotten
jealousies and various interests extinguished by the lapse of
time, or perhaps silenced in the grave; still it would be
melancholy to retrace the days of my youth and to bring before my
imagination the blooming faces and the gaiety and brilliancy of
those who once shone the meteors of society, but who would then
be so changed in form and mind, and with myself rapidly
descending to our last home.
[44] [Mr. Luttrell's 'Advice to Julia,' published in 1820.]
Read 'Les Liaisons dangereuses.' Much has been said about the
dangerous tendency of certain books, and probably this would be
considered as one pregnant with mischief. I consider this a mere
jargon, and although I would never recommend this book (because
it is so grossly indecent) I should never apprehend the smallest
danger to the most inexperienced mind or the warmest passions
from its immoral tendency. The principle upon which books of this
description are considered pernicious is the notion that they
represent vice in such glowing and attractive colours as to make
us lose sight of its deformity and fill our imagination with the
idea of its pleasures. No one who has any feeling or a spark of
generosity or humanity in his breast can read this book without
being moved with compassion for Madame de Tourval and with horror
and disgust towards Valmont and Madame de Merteuil. It raised in
my mind a detestation of such cold-blooded, inhuman profligacy,
and I felt that I would rather every pleasure that can flow from
the intercourse of women were debarred me than run such a course.
The moral effect upon my mind was stronger than any which ever
resulted from the most didactic work, and if anyone wants to
excite remorse in the most vicious mind I would recommend him to
make use of 'Les Liaisons dangereuses' for the purpose.
The Duchess of York died on Sunday morning of water on her chest.
She was insensible the last two days. She is deeply regretted by
her husband, her friends, and her servants. Probably no person in
such a situation was ever more really liked. She has left £12,000
to her servants and some children whom she had caused to be
educated. She had arranged all her affairs with the greatest
exactitude, and left nothing undone.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S TRIAL.]
The Queen's letter was brought to the King whilst he was at
dinner (at the Cottage). He said, 'Tell the Queen's messenger
that the King can receive no communication from her except
through the hands of his Ministers.' Esterhazy was present, and
said he did this with extraordinary dignity.
Newmarket, October 2nd, 1820 {p.035}
I left town in the middle of August with George Fox. We went down
with extraordinary rapidity. I never was happier than to escape
from London and to find myself in Yorkshire. It was a new world,
and the change was most refreshing. The refinement of London was
not there, but there was a good humour, gaiety, and hospitality
which amused and delighted me.
London, October 8th, 1820 {p.035}
I came to town with Payne on Friday, having won a little at
Newmarket. He told me a good story by the way. A certain bishop
in the House of Lords rose to speak, and announced that he should
divide what he had to say into twelve parts, when the Duke of
Wharton interrupted him, and begged he might be indulged for a
few minutes, as he had a story to tell which he could only
introduce at that moment. A drunken fellow was passing by St.
Paul's at night, and heard the clock slowly chiming twelve. He
counted the strokes, and when it had finished looked towards the
clock and said, 'Damn you! why couldn't you give us all that at
once?' There was an end of the bishop's story.
The town is still in an uproar about the trial, and nobody has
any doubt that it will finish by the Bill being thrown out and
the Ministers turned out. Brougham's speech was the most
magnificent display of argument and oratory that has been heard
for years, and they say that the impression it made upon the
House was immense; even his most violent opponents (including
Lord Lonsdale) were struck with admiration and astonishment.
[Page Head: THE QUEEN'S TRIAL.]
October 15th, 1820 {p.035}
Since I came to town I have been to the trial every day. I have
occupied a place close to Brougham, which, besides the advantage
it affords of enabling me to hear extremely well everything that
passes, gives me the pleasure of talking to him and the other
counsel, and puts me behind the scenes so far that I cannot help
hearing all their conversation, their remarks, and learning what
witnesses they are going to examine, and many other things which
are interesting and amusing. Since I have been in the world I
never remember any question which so exclusively occupied
everybody's attention, and so completely absorbed men's thoughts
and engrossed conversation. In the same degree is the violence
displayed. It is taken up as a party question entirely, and the
consequence is that everybody is gone mad about it. Very few
people admit of any medium between pronouncing the Queen quite
innocent and judging her guilty and passing the Bill. Until the
evidence of Lieut. Hownam it was generally thought that proofs of
her guilt were wanting, but since his admission that Bergami
slept under the tent with her all unprejudiced men seem to think
the adultery sufficiently proved. The strenuous opposers of the
Bill, however, by no means allow this, and make a mighty
difference between sleeping dressed under a tent and being shut
up at night in a room together, which the supporters of the Bill
contend would have been quite or nearly the same thing. The Duke
of Portland, who is perfectly impartial, and who has always been
violently against the Bill, was so satisfied by Hownam's evidence
that he told me that after that admission by him he thought all
further proceedings useless, and that it was ridiculous to listen
to any more evidence, as the fact was proved; that he should
attend no longer to any evidence upon the subject. This view of
the case will not, however, induce him to vote for the Bill,
because he thinks that upon grounds of expediency it ought not to
pass. The Ministers were elated in an extraordinary manner by
this evidence of Hownam's. The Duke of Wellington told Madame de
Lieven that he was very tired; 'mais les grands succès fatiguent
autant que les grands revers.' They look upon the progress of
this trial in the light of a campaign, and upon each day's
proceedings as a sort of battle, and by the impression made by
the evidence they consider that they have gained a victory or
sustained a defeat. Their anxiety that this Bill should pass is
quite inconceivable, for it cannot be their interest that it
should be carried; and as for the King, they have no feeling
whatever for him. The Duke of Portland told me that he conversed
with the Duke of Wellington upon the subject, and urged as one of
the reasons why this Bill should not pass the House of Lords the
disgrace that it would entail upon the King by the recrimination
that would ensue in the House of Commons. His answer was 'that
the King was degraded as low as he could be already.' The
vehemence with which they pursue this object produces a
corresponding violence in their language and sentiments. Lady
Harrowby, who is usually very indifferent upon political
subjects, has taken this up with unusual eagerness. In an
argument which I had with her the day before yesterday, she said
that if the House of Lords was to suffer itself to be influenced
by the opinions and wishes of the people, it would be the most
mean and pusillanimous conduct, and that after all what did it
signify what the people thought or what they expressed if the
army was to be depended upon? I answered that I never had
expected that the day would come when I should be told that we
were to disregard the feelings and wishes of the people of this
country, and to look to our army for support. In proportion
as the Ministers were elated by what came out in Hownam's
cross-examination so were they depressed by the unlucky affair of
Rastelli,[45] which has given such an important advantage to
their adversaries. Mr. Powell's explanation was extremely
unsatisfactory, and in his examination yesterday they elicited
from him what is tantamount to a contradiction of what he had
said the day before. It is not possible to doubt what is the real
state of the case. Rastelli is an active, useful agent, and they
had occasion for his services; consequently they sent him off,
and trusted that he would be back here before he could possibly
be called for, if ever he should be called for again. It was a
rash speculation, which failed. The last two days have been more
amusing and interesting than the preceding ones. The debates in
the House, a good deal of violence, and some personalities have
given spirit to the proceedings, which were getting very dull.
Lord Holland made a violent speech, and Lord Carnarvon a clever
one, which was violent enough too, on Rastelli's affair. Lord
Holland made one or two little speeches which were very comical.
Lord Lauderdale made a violent speech the other day, and paid
himself in it a great many compliments. It must be acknowledged
that the zeal of many of the Peers is very embarrassing,
displayed as it is not in the elucidation of the truth, but in
furtherance of that cause of which they desire the success. There
is no one more violent than Lord Lauderdale,[46] and neither the
Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General can act with greater
zeal than he does in support of the Bill. Lord Liverpool is a
model of fairness, impartiality, and candour. The Chancellor is
equally impartial, and as he decides personally all disputes on
legal points which are referred to the House, his fairness has
been conspicuous in having generally decided in favour of the
Queen's counsel. Yesterday morning some discussion arose about a
question which Brougham put to Powell. He asked him who was his
principal, as he was an agent. The question was objected to, and
he began to defend it in an uncommonly clever speech, but was
stopped before he had spoken long. He introduced a very ingenious
quotation which was suggested to him by Spencer Perceval, who was
standing near him. Talking of the airy, unsubstantial being who
was the principal, and one of the parties in this cause, he said
he wished to meet
This shape--
If shape it could be called--that shape had none,
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb;
Or substance might be called that shadow seemed,
For each seemed either . . .
What seemed its head
The likeness of a kingly crown had on.
_Paradise Lost_, ii. 666.
[45] [Rastelli was a witness for the Bill--not a very
important one. After his examination was over he was
allowed to leave the country. Brougham found this out,
and instantly demanded that he should be recalled for
further cross-examination, well knowing this could not
at the moment be done. This answered his purpose, and
he then turned with incredible vehemence on the other
side, and accused them of spiriting away the witness.]
[46] [In the course of the trial, in order to show that the
Queen had associated in Italy with ladies of good
character, it was stated that a Countess T----
frequented her society at Florence. On
cross-examination it came out that the Countess spoke a
provincial dialect, anything but the purest Tuscan,
whence it was implied that she was a vulgar person, and
Lord Lauderdale especially pointed out this inference,
speaking himself in very broad Scotch. Upon which
Lord ----, a member of the Opposition, said to the
witness, 'Have the goodness to state whether Countess
T---- spoke Italian with as broad an accent as the
noble Earl who has just sat down speaks with in his
native tongue.' The late Sir Henry Holland was present
when this occurred, and used to relate the anecdote.]
[Page Head: WELLINGTON'S ACCOUNT OF WATERLOO.]
Whersted, December 10th, 1820 {p.039}
I left Woburn on Thursday night last, and got here on Friday
morning. The Lievens, Worcesters, Duke of Wellington, Neumann,
and Montagu were here. The Duke went away yesterday. We acted
charades, which were very well done. Yesterday we went to shoot
at Sir Philip Brookes'. As we went in the carriage, the Duke
talked a great deal about the battle of Waterloo and different
things relating to that campaign. He said that he had 50,000 men
at Waterloo. He began the campaign with 85,000 men, lost 5,000 on
the 16th, and had a corps of 20,000 at Hal under Prince
Frederick. He said that it was remarkable that nobody who had
ever spoken of these operations had ever made mention of that
corps,[47] and Bonaparte was certainly ignorant of it. In this
corps were the best of the Dutch troops; it had been placed there
because the Duke expected the attack to be made on that side. He
said that the French army was the best army that was ever seen,
and that in the previous operations Bonaparte's march upon
Belgium was the finest thing that ever was done--so rapid and so
well combined. His object was to beat the armies in detail, and
this object succeeded in so far as that he attacked them
separately; but from the extraordinary celerity with which the
allied armies were got together he was not able to realise the
advantages he had promised himself. The Duke says that they
certainly were not prepared for this attack,[48] as the French
had previously broken up the roads by which their army advanced;
but as it was in summer this did not render them impassable. He
says that Bonaparte beat the Prussians in a most extraordinary
way, as the battle[49] was gained in less than four hours; but
that it would probably have been more complete if he had brought
a greater number of troops into action, and not detached so large
a body against the British corps. There were 40,000 men opposed
to the Duke on the 16th, but he says that the attack was not so
powerful as it ought to have been with such a force. The French
had made a long march the day before the battle, and had driven
in the Prussian posts in the evening. I asked him if he thought
Bonaparte had committed any fault. He said he thought he had
committed a fault in attacking him in the position of Waterloo;
that his object ought to have been to remove him as far as
possible from the Prussian army, and that he ought consequently
to have moved upon Hal, and to have attempted to penetrate by the
same road by which the Duke had himself advanced. He had always
calculated upon Bonaparte's doing this, and for this purpose he
had posted 20,000 men under Prince Frederick at Hal. He said that
the position at Waterloo was uncommonly strong, but that the
strength of it consisted alone in the two farms of Hougoumont and
La Haye Sainte, both of which were admirably situated and adapted
for defence. In Hougoumont there were never more than from 300 to
500 men, who were reinforced as it was necessary; and although
the French repeatedly attacked this point, and sometimes with not
less than 20,000 men, they never could even approach it. Had they
obtained possession of it, they could not have maintained it, as
it was open on one side to the whole fire of the English lines,
whilst it was sheltered on the side towards the French. The Duke
said the farm of La Haye Sainte was still better than that of
Hougoumont, and that it never would have been taken if the
officer who was commanding there had not neglected to make an
aperture through which ammunition could be conveyed to his
garrison.
[47] [The Duke of Wellington has frequently been criticised
for leaving so important a body of troops at Hal, so
far upon his right that they were of no use in the
battle. He always defended this disposition, and
maintained that the greater probability was that
Napoleon would attack his extreme right and advance by
Hal. On this occasion (in 1820) he himself drew
attention to it, as is explained in the text.]
[48] [This passage is obscure, as the pronoun _they_ can
hardly refer to the allied armies: but it stands so in
the MS.]
[49] [The battle of Ligny, 16th of June, 1815.]
[Page Head: WELLINGTON AND BLUCHER IN PARIS.]
When we arrived at Sir Philip Brookes' it rained, and we were
obliged to sit in the house, when the Duke talked a great deal
about Paris and different things. He told us that Blücher was
determined to destroy the Bridge of Jena. The Duke spoke to
Müffling, the Governor of Paris, and desired him to persuade
Blücher to abandon this design. However, Blücher was quite
determined. He said the French had destroyed the pillar at
Rosbach and other things, and that they merited this retaliation.
He also said that the English had burnt Washington, and he did
not see why he was not to destroy this bridge. Müffling, however,
concerted with the Duke that English sentinels should be placed
on the bridge, and if any Prussian soldiers should approach to
injure it, these sentinels were not to retire. This they
conceived would gain time, as they thought that previous to
making any attempt on the bridge Blücher would apply to the Duke
to withdraw the English sentinels. This was of no avail. The
Prussians arrived, mined the arches, and attempted to blow up the
bridge, sentinels and all. Their design, however, was frustrated,
and the bridge received no injury. At length Müffling came to the
Duke, and said that he was come to propose to him a compromise,
which was that the bridge should be spared and the column in the
Place Vendôme should be destroyed instead. 'I saw,' said the
Duke, 'that I had got out of the frying-pan into the fire.
Fortunately at this moment the King of Prussia arrived, and he
ordered that no injury should be done to either.' On another
occasion Blücher announced his intention of levying a contribution
of 100 millions on the city of Paris. To this the Duke objected,
and said that the raising such enormous contributions could only
be done by common consent, and must be a matter of general
arrangement. Blücher said, 'Oh! I do not mean to be the only
party who is to levy anything; you may levy as much for
yourselves, and, depend upon it, if you do it will all be paid;
there will be no difficulty whatever.' The Duke says that the two
invasions cost the French 100 millions sterling. The Allies had
1,200,000 men clothed at their expense; the allowance for this
was 60 francs a man. The army of occupation was entirely
maintained; there were the contributions, the claims amounting to
ten millions sterling. Besides this there were towns and villages
destroyed and country laid waste.