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 Head: IRRITATION OF THE WHIGS.]
January 28th, 1828 {p.124}
Until the Duke of Wellington's commission as First Lord of the
Treasury appeared many people doubted that he would take the
office.[1] The Ordnance was offered to Lord Rosslyn, who refused
it, and then given to Lord Beresford, but without a seat in the
Cabinet (as Lord Bathurst told me) by his own particular desire.
Some days have now elapsed, and time has been afforded for the
expression of popular feeling and opinion on the late changes.
Lady Canning and many of Canning's friends are very much
dissatisfied with Huskisson, and think he deserted his principles
and outraged the memory of Canning. Lady C. particularly is much
hurt at what has passed. She has not seen Huskisson, but he is
aware of her sentiments, though he says she has so high an
opinion of him that she is sure he is acting for what he believes
to be the best. The majority of Canning's friends have adhered to
the Government. The great body of the Whigs who belonged to or
supported the late Government are indignant and violent,
particularly with Huskisson, who they think has betrayed them. An
interview has taken place between Huskisson and Lord Lansdowne,
in which the former explained his conduct, and (as far as I can
learn) the latter said but little, neither condemning nor
approving. But the great body of the party are resolved to oppose
the new Government in every way, though without attempting to
form a party, which they do not think feasible in their present
condition. They intend a desultory and harassing warfare,
particularly attacking Huskisson upon Liberal measures, to which
he stands pledged, but which they think he will now be prevented
by his colleagues from carrying into effect. The seceding Whigs
are triumphant, because they assert that what has happened is a
full justification of their conduct. They forget, however, that
all this is mainly attributable to them and to Canning's death,
which occurred in the interim. On the other hand the old Tories
are not altogether satisfied, and, though rejoiced at the
restoration of the party, cannot bear to see Huskisson and his
friends members of the Government from abhorrence of Canning and
all Liberal principles. However, the principal men have sent in
their adhesions in very civil letters to the Duke.
[1] [The Duke of Wellington's Administration was at first
constituted as follows:--
Duke of Wellington, First Lord of the Treasury.
Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Chancellor.
Earl Bathurst, Lord President of the Council.
Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. Peel, Home Secretary.
Lord Dudley, Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Huskisson, Colonial Secretary.
Earl of Aberdeen, Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. Goulburn, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Charles Grant, President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Herries, Master of the Mint.
Viscount Melville, President of the India Board.
Lord Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, Mr. Grant, and Lord
Palmerston (Secretary at War, not in the Cabinet)
were the four Canningite members who resigned in
May following. They were replaced by Lord
Aberdeen, Sir George Murray, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald,
and Sir Henry Hardinge respectively.]
All the Ministers (old and new) were at Windsor the other day;
but it was contrived that they should not meet, the _ins_ being
in one room and Lansdowne and Carlisle in another, and it was
afterwards discovered that in a third room by himself was
Goderich. This Lord Sefton told me, and he had it from Lord
Lansdowne, who had it from the King and confirmed by Lord
Conyngham. His Majesty was remarkably civil to Lords Lansdowne
and Carlisle. The King had a scene with the Duke of Devonshire,
whom he could not persuade to stay in his place, though he tried
hard. Scarlett has resigned the Attorney-Generalship, but not
very willingly. He wrote to Milton and asked his advice. Milton
advised him to resign, and so he did. One thing that has angered
the Tories is the Duke's not having consulted Lord Eldon, nor
offered him any place; and it seems he is extremely mortified,
for though he did not want the seals again, he would have been
very glad to take office as President of the Council.
[Page Head: IRRITATION OF THE WHIGS.]
February 25th, 1828 {p.126}
There is one advantage in writing at intervals of some time
instead of keeping a regular diary; I can take a more bird's-eye
view of events, and avoid falling into many errors, which it
would be afterwards necessary to correct. I went to Newmarket and
stayed there three weeks for my health. While I was there
Huskisson made his speech at Liverpool.[2] The Tories were
furious, and in the House of Lords the Duke of Wellington
contradicted it, or rather said he did not believe it was
faithfully reported, for all that he was reported to have said
about _the guarantee_ was untrue. I returned to town in time for
the House of Commons, and found the greatest excitement,
curiosity, and violence generally prevailing. As to Huskisson, he
had offended the Tories, the Whigs, and Lady Canning, and
everybody condemned him. Parties were split to pieces, there was
no Opposition, and no man could tell what were the politics of
his neighbour, scarcely what his own. Lady Canning was in a state
of great rage and resentment, and had inspired George Bentinck
with the same sentiments. Clanricarde had been sent down by her
to the House of Lords furnished with extracts of Canning's
letters to throw in the teeth of his old friends and his old
enemies, and she threatened fresh disclosures and fresh documents
which were to confound all whom she deemed worthy of her
indignation. A very angry colloquy took place at a dinner at
Warrender's between Lord Seaford and George Bentinck, in which
the latter violently attacked Mr. Canning's friends for joining
the present Government, and quoted Huskisson's declaration that
he would never act with the men who had abandoned him. Lord
Seaford grew angry, and asked George what he knew of that
declaration and what his authority was for quoting it. To which
George replied that he had it from himself--from Lord Seaford at
Paris. This confounded the noble Lord, and altogether there was a
pretty violent altercation, which greatly annoyed both him and
Howard, who was present, and was regretted by all their common
friends. Two days after this came on the debate in the House of
Commons and the explanations of Huskisson and Herries. Their
speeches were both satisfactory enough till Tierney spoke, who
entirely knocked over their cases, or at least that of Herries,
for against Huskisson he proved nothing, except that he might
perhaps have been more communicative, though I think this
reproach applies more to Lord Goderich than to him. The
impression left with regard to Herries was as unfavourable as
possible.
[2] [The speech made by Mr. Huskisson on his re-election at
Liverpool on the 5th of February, 1828, is printed in
vol. iii. of his 'Collected Speeches,' p. 673. It
contains a full account of these transactions. The
passage which gave so much offence to the Tories was
that 'if the Government was such as satisfied the view
I took of the interests of the country, and provided
such arrangements were made in its construction _as
afforded a guarantee_ that the principle I approved
should not be departed from, I was not precluded from
joining it;' and again, 'The presence in office of such
men as Lord Dudley, Lord Palmerston, Mr. Grant, and Mr.
Lamb is the most satisfactory of all guarantees that
the general principles of our foreign and commercial
system would remain unchanged, and that Ireland would
be governed with the strictest impartiality in respect
to the Catholic question.'
These declarations of Mr. Huskisson had a material
effect on the occurrences which not long afterwards
took place.]
[Page Head: TOM DUNCOMBE'S MAIDEN SPEECH.]
The great event of the night was Duncombe's[3] speech, which was
delivered with perfect self-possession and composure, but in so
ridiculous a manner that everybody laughed at him, although they
were amused with his impudence and at the style and objects of
his attack. However, the next day it was discovered that he
had performed a great exploit; he was loudly applauded and
congratulated on all sides, and made into the hero of the day.
His fame was infinitely increased on a subsequent night, when
Herries again came before the House and when Tommy fired another
shot at him. The newspapers were full of his praises. The Whigs
called at his door and eagerly sought his acquaintance. Those who
love fun and personality cheered him on with loud applause, and
he now fancies himself the greatest man going, and is ready to
get up and abuse anybody on the Treasury bench. To me, who knew
all the secret strings that moved this puppet, nothing can be
more amusing.
[3] [Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, nephew of the first Lord
Feversham distinguished for his Radical opinions, M.P.
for Finsbury after the Reform Bill. He sat at this time
for Hertford; and the incident related in the text
appears to have been his _début_ in political life.]
The history of Tom Duncombe and his speech is instructive as well
as amusing, for it is a curious proof of the facility with which
the world may be deceived, and of the prodigious effect which may
be produced by the smallest means, if they are aided by some
fortuitous circumstances and happily applied. Tommy came to Henry
de Ros and told him that his constituents at Hertford were very
anxious he should make a speech, but that he did not know what to
say, and begged Henry to supply him with the necessary materials.
He advised him to strike out something new, and having received
his assurance that he should be able to recollect anything that
he learned by heart, and that he was not afraid of his courage
failing, Henry composed for him the speech which Duncombe
delivered. But knowing the slender capacity of his man, he was
not satisfied with placing the speech in his hands, but adopted
every precaution which his ingenuity suggested to avert the
danger of his breaking down. He made him learn the speech by
heart, and then made him think it over again and put it into
language of his own, justly fearing that if he should forget any
of the more polished periods of the original it would appear
sadly botched by his own interpolations. He then instructed him
largely as to how and when he was to bring it in, supplying him
with various commonplace phrases to be used as connecting links,
and by the help of which he might be enabled to fasten upon some
of the preceding speeches. I saw Henry de Ros the day before the
debate, when he told me what he was doing, and asked me to
suggest anything that occurred upon the subject, and at the same
time repeated to me the speech with which he had armed his hero.
I hinted my apprehensions that he would fail in the delivery, but
though he was not without some alarm, he expressed (as it
afterwards appeared a well-grounded) confidence in Duncombe's
extraordinary nerve and intrepidity.
His speech on the second night was got up precisely in the same
manner, and although it appeared to arise out of the debate and
of those which preceded it, the matter had been all crammed into
him by his invisible Mentor. The amusement to him and to me
(especially at the honours that have been thickly poured upon him
and the noise which he has made in the world) is indescribably
pungent.
Thus Duncombe and his speech have made what is called a great
sensation, and he has the reputation (no matter whether justly or
not) of having thrown the enemy's camp into greater confusion by
the boldness of his language than anybody has ever done, because
nobody has ever before dared to mention those whom he dragged
forward. To the ignorant majority of the world he appears a man
of great promise, of boldness, quickness, and decision, and the
uproar that is made about him cannot fail to impress others as
well as himself with a high notion of his consequence.
Knighton is gone abroad, I have very little doubt, in consequence
of what passed, and as nobody enquires very minutely into the
real causes of things where they get apparent ones with ease, it
is said and believed at once that Duncombe is the man who has
driven him out, and that he has given the first blow to that
secret influence which has only been obscurely hinted at before
and never openly attacked. These are great and important matters,
far exceeding any consequences which the authors of the speech
anticipated from its delivery at the time. And what are the
agents who have produced such an effect? A man of ruined fortune
and doubtful character, whose life has been spent on the
race-course, at the gaming-table, and in the green-room, of
limited capacity, exceedingly ignorant, and without any stock
but his impudence to trade on, only speaking to serve an
electioneering purpose, and crammed by another man with every
thought and every word that he uttered.
[Page Head: DISPUTES IN THE CABINET.]
June 12th, 1828 {p.130}
We have now got a Tory Government, and all that remained of
Canning's party are gone.[4] The case of the Duke of Wellington
and Huskisson is before the world, but nobody judges fairly.
Motives are attributed to both parties which had no existence,
and the truth is hardly ever told at first, though it generally
oozes out by degrees. After the explanations in February the
Government went on to all appearance very well, but there lurked
under this semblance of harmony some seeds of jealousy and
distrust, not I believe so much in the mind of the Duke as in
those of his Tory colleagues, and the Canningites on their side
certainly felt no cordiality even towards the Duke himself. They
said that he never could nor would understand anything; that he
said a thing one day and forgot it the next, and instead of that
clearness of intellect for which he had credit, nothing could be
more puzzled and confused than he was; that nothing could absolve
him from the suspicion of duplicity and insincerity but the
conviction that his ambiguous conduct on various occasions arose
from a confusion of ideas. On the other hand, Lord Bathurst told
my father that he thought they (Huskisson and his friends) were
too much disposed to act together as a party in the Cabinet; and
it is clear that the Duke thought so too, and that this feeling
and the resentment it engendered in his mind are the real reasons
of his conduct on the late occasion.
[4] [Bills had been brought into Parliament for the
disfranchisement of the boroughs of Penryn and East
Retford, and the transfer of those seats to Manchester
and Birmingham. On the East Retford case, which came
before the House of Commons on the 19th of May, Mr.
Huskisson felt bound in honour to support the measure,
and voted against his colleagues. On his return home
after the debate he wrote a hasty letter to the Duke of
Wellington, in which he said that he 'owed it to the
Duke and to Mr. Peel to lose no time in affording them
an opportunity of placing his office in other hands.'
The Duke regarding this as a formal act of resignation,
laid it before the King and filled up the appointment.
The correspondence is published in the Duke of
Wellington's 'Correspondence,' New Series, vol. iv.
p. 449. The resignation of Lord Palmerston, Charles
Grant, and Lord Dudley followed. The details of this
transaction are sufficiently alluded to in the text.]
There had been a dispute in the Cabinet about the Corn Bill,
which occasioned the discussion of it to be put off for a few
days at the time, and upon that occasion Grant resigned his
office. The matter was made up and he stayed. But when upon
the East Retford affair Huskisson resigned, and in such an
extraordinary manner, the Duke felt that there was a disposition
to embarrass him by these perpetual tenders of resignation, which
he believed they thought he would not venture to accept. Upon
receiving Huskisson's letter he went to Lord Bathurst and
consulted him, and Lord Bathurst advised him to take him at his
word. Everybody looks for some cause which does not appear for
important events, and people with difficulty admit of very simple
solutions and very trifling causes, though such are not
unfrequently the real ones. I believe that Huskisson had no
intention of embarrassing the Duke and none of resigning; but for
a cool and sensible man his conduct is most extraordinary, for he
acted with the precipitation of a schoolboy and showed a complete
want of all those qualities of prudence and calm deliberation for
which he has the greatest credit. But though this breach might
have been avoided, from the sentiments which have been expressed
by both parties, it is evident other differences would have
arisen which must have dissolved the Government before long.
After putting aside the violent opinions on both sides, the
conclusion is that Huskisson acted very hastily and imprudently,
and that his letter (say what he will) was a complete resignation,
and that the Duke had a right so to consider it; that in the
Duke's conduct there appeared a want of courtesy and an anxiety
to get rid of him which it would have been more fair to avow and
defend than to deny; that on both sides there was a mixture of
obstinacy and angry feeling, and a disposition to treat the
question rather as a personal matter than one in which the public
interests were deeply concerned. But the charge which is made on
one side that Huskisson wanted to embarrass the Duke's Government
and enhance his own importance, and that on the other of the
Duke's insincerity, are both unfounded.
Some circumstances, however, contributed to place the Duke's
conduct in an unfavourable point of view. These were the
extravagant and unconcealed joy of the High Tories and of his
immediate friends, and his attending at the same time the Pitt
dinner and sitting there while Lord Eldon gave his famous 'one
cheer more' for Protestant ascendency. That he treated Huskisson
with some degree of harshness there is no doubt, but he was
angry, and not without reason; the former brought it all upon
himself. During the debate upon East Retford, when Huskisson was
called upon by Sandon to redeem his pledge, he told Peel that he
could not help himself, and must vote against him; but he begged
him to put off the question till the following week, that it
might be considered again. This Peel refused; had he acceded, all
this would not have taken place.
When the King saw Huskisson he was extremely gracious to him,
expressed the utmost regret at losing him, and said that he had
wished not to see him at first, that he might avoid receiving his
resignation, and in hopes that the matter would have been
arranged.[5] However, the other party say that the King is very
glad to have got rid of him and his party.
[5] [Huskisson solicited an audience, which his Majesty
refused for some days to grant: he would not see him
until he had written again to the Duke of Wellington.]
In the middle of all this Madame de Lieven is supposed to have
acted with great impertinence if not imprudence, and to have made
use of the access she has to the King to say all sorts of things
against the Duke and the present Government. Her dislike to the
Duke has been increasing ever since that cessation of intimacy
which was caused by Canning's accession to power, when she
treated him very uncivilly in order to pay court to Canning.
Esterhazy told me last night that although her position here was
now greatly changed, and that it was far from being so agreeable
as it was, he could not accuse her of imprudence in having taken
the part she had done, because he thought that it had answered
very well, and that the objects of her Court had been in great
measure accomplished through her means.
[Page Head: THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.]
June 18th, 1828
The Duke of Wellington's speech on the Catholic question is
considered by many to have been so moderate as to indicate a
disposition on his part to concede emancipation, and bets have
been laid that Catholics will sit in Parliament next year. Many
men are resolved to see it in this light who are anxious to join
his Government, and whose scruples with regard to that question
are removed by such an interpretation of his speech. I do not
believe he means to do anything until he is compelled to it,
which if he remains in office he will be; for the success of the
Catholic question depends neither on Whigs nor Tories, the former
of whom have not the power and the latter not the inclination to
carry it. The march of time and the state of Ireland will effect
it in spite of everything, and its slow but continual advance can
neither be retarded by its enemies nor accelerated by its
friends. In the meantime men affect to consider his expressions
as of importance enough to influence their conduct in taking or
refusing office. Frankland Lewis,[6] who refused the Irish
Secretaryship, said that after that speech he regretted his
refusal and would be glad to take it, and now he wants to join
the Government again. Certainly at this moment the Tories are
triumphant, and so far from the Duke's Government having any
difficulty in standing, there does not appear to be a disposition
in any quarter to oppose it. Not only in Parliament there is no
Opposition, but the press is veering round and treating him with
great civility. The Government seem well disposed to follow up
the Liberal policy, to which they have been suspected of being
adverse, and have already declared that they do not intend to
deviate either in their foreign or domestic policy from the
principles on which the Government was understood to act previous
to the separation. Arbuthnot told my father yesterday that they
all regret now having resigned in 1827, and Huskisson owned to A.
that he had acted with unfortunate precipitancy.
[6] [Right Hon. T. Frankland Lewis, a member of the
Grenville and Canning section of the Tory party; made a
baronet by Sir Robert Peel; the father of the Right
Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis.]
June 29th, 1828 {p.134}
I dined yesterday with the King at St. James's--his Jockey Club
dinner. There were about thirty people, several not being invited
whom he did not fancy. The Duke of Leeds told me a much greater
list had been made out, but he had scratched several out of it.
We assembled in the Throne Room, and found him already there,
looking very well and walking about. He soon, however, sat down,
and desired everybody else to do so. Nobody spoke, and he laughed
and said, 'This is more like a Quaker than a Jockey Club
meeting.' We soon went to dinner, which was in the Great Supper
Room and very magnificent. He sat in the middle, with the Dukes
of Richmond and Grafton on each side of him. I sat opposite to
him, and he was particularly gracious to me, talking to me across
the table and recommending all the good things; he made me (after
eating a quantity of turtle) eat a dish of crawfish soup, till I
thought I should have burst. After dinner the Duke of Leeds, who
sat at the head of the table, gave 'The King.' We all stood up,
when his Majesty thanked us, and said he hoped this would be the
first of annual meetings of the sort to take place, there or
elsewhere under his roof. He then ordered paper, pens, &c., and
they began making matches and stakes; the most perfect ease was
established, just as much as if we had been dining with the Duke
of York, and he seemed delighted. He made one or two little
speeches, one recommending that a stop should be put to the
exportation of horses. He twice gave 'The Turf,' and at the end
the Duke of Richmond asked his leave to give a toast, and again
gave 'The King.' He thanked all the gentlemen, and said that
there was no man who had the interests of the turf more at heart
than himself, that he was delighted at having this party, and
that the oftener they met the better, and he only wanted to have
it pointed out to him how he could promote the pleasure and
amusement of the turf, and he was ready to do anything in his
power. He got up at half-past twelve and wished us good night.
Nothing could go off better, and Mount Charles told me he was
sure he was delighted.
[Page Head: LORD LYNDHURST AND THE GREAT SEAL.]
I dined with the Chancellor [Lord Lyndhurst] three days ago; he
talked to me a great deal about his acceptance of the Great Seal
and of the speculation it was. He was Master of the Rolls with
£7,000 a year for life when it was offered to him; he debated
whether it was worth while to give this up to be Chancellor for
perhaps only one year, with a peerage and the pension. He talked
the matter over with his wife, and they agreed that if it only
lasted one year (which he evidently thought probable) it was
worth while, besides the contingency of a long Chancellorship. He
asked me if the Government was popular and reckoned strong. I
told him it was apparently popular and reckoned strong, because
there was no Opposition and little chance of any. I said that
however hazardous his speculation might have been, it had turned
out well, for he had a good chance of being Chancellor as long as
his predecessor had been, there being so few candidates for the
office. He said this was true, and then he talked of his Court,
and said it was impossible for one man to do the business of it.
In talking of the speculation he had made, political opinions and
political consistency seemed never to occur to him, and he
considered the whole matter in a light so business-like and
professional as to be quite amusing. He talked of the Duke, said
he was a good man to do business with, quick and intelligent, and
'how well he managed that little correspondence with Huskisson,'
which was droll enough, for Huskisson dined there and was in the
room.
[Page Head: SIR ROBERT ADAIR'S ANECDOTES.]
August 6th, 1828 {p.136}
About three weeks ago I went to Windsor to a Council. The King
had been very ill for a day or two, but was recovered. Rob
Adair[7] was sworn in Privy Councillor, and he remained in the
room and heard the speech, which he ought not to have done. The
Duke attacked me afterwards (in joke) for letting him stay; but I
told him it was no business of mine, and his neighbour ought to
have told him to go. That neighbour, however, was Vesey
Fitzgerald, who said it was the first time he had attended a
Council, and he could not begin by turning another man out. I
brought Adair back to town, and he told me a great many things
about Burke, and Fox, and Fitzpatrick, and all the eminent men of
that time with whom he lived when he was young. He said what I
have often heard before, that Fitzpatrick was the most agreeable
of them all, but Hare the most brilliant. Burke's conversation
was delightful, so luminous and instructive. He was very
passionate, and Adair said that the first time he ever saw him he
unluckily asked him some question about the wild parts of
Ireland, when Burke broke out, 'You are a fool and a blockhead;
there are no wild parts in Ireland.' He was extremely terrified,
but afterwards Burke was very civil to him, and he knew him very
well.
[7] [Right Hon. Sir Robert Adair, the friend of Fox,
formerly ambassador at Constantinople and Vienna. It
was he whom Canning once called 'Bobadare-a-dool-fowla.']
He told me a great deal about the quarrel between Fox and Burke.
Fox never ceased to entertain a regard for Burke, and at no time
would suffer him to be abused in his presence. There was an
attempt made to bring about a reconciliation, and a meeting for
that purpose took place of all the leading men at Burlington
House. Burke was on the point of yielding when his son suddenly
made his appearance unbidden, and on being told what was going on
said, 'My father shall be no party to such a compromise,' took
Burke aside and persuaded him to reject the overtures. That
son Adair described as the most disagreeable, violent, and
wrong-headed of men, but the idol of his father, who used to say
that he united all his own talents and acquirements with those of
Fox and everybody else. After the death of Richard Burke, Fox and
Burke met behind the throne of the House of Lords one day, when
Fox went up to Burke and put out both his hands to him. Burke was
almost surprised into meeting this cordiality in the same spirit,
but the momentary impulse passed away, and he doggedly dropped
his hands and left the House.
Adair told me that Lord Holland has written very copious memoirs
of his own time, and particularly characters of all the eminent
men who have died, in the delineation of which he excels. Soon
after Pitt's resignation in 1801 there was an attempt made to
effect a junction between Pitt and Fox, to which they were
neither of them averse. The negotiation was, however, entrusted
to subordinate agents, and Adair said that he had always
regretted that they had not met, for if they had he thought the
matter would have been arranged. As it was the design was
thwarted by the King through the intervention (I think he said)
of Lord Loughborough.
There was another Council about a week ago. On these occasions
the King always whispers to me something or other about his
racehorses or something about myself, and I am at this moment in
high favour. We had Howley and Bloomfield[8] at this Council,
with the latter of whom I made acquaintance, to the great
amusement of the Duke. He laughed at seeing me conversing with
this bishop.
[8] [The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of
London.]
I hear from Frederick Lamb that the Duke is greatly alarmed about
Ireland. By-the-by he, Frederick,[9] is come back from Portugal,
thinking that our Government have acted very ill and very
foolishly, first encouraging and then abandoning these wretched
Constitutionalists to their fate, and he is no particular friend
to Liberalism.
[9] [Sir Frederick Lamb, afterwards created Lord Beauvale,
and who became Lord Melbourne on the death of his
brother William.]
August 14th, 1828 {p.137}
Just returned from Goodwood, where I went on the 11th, and heard
on arriving that the Lord High Admiral had resigned, but no
particulars. It is a very good thing at all events.
August 16th, 1828 {p.138}
The Lord High Admiral was turned out.[10] The Duke told him that
he must go, but that he might resign as if of his own accord. The
Duke is all-powerful. It is strongly reported that Peel will
resign, that the Duke means to concede the Catholic question and
to negotiate a _concordat_ with the Pope. Many people think Lord
Grey will join the Government, and that he will be First Lord of
the Admiralty. The Duke gave his brother Dr. Bloomfield's living
without any solicitation. Esterhazy told me to-night that
Palmella entertains from twenty to thirty of his countrymen at
dinner every day, of whom there are several hundred in London, of
the best families, totally destitute. All Palmella's property is
sequestrated, but he receives the appointment of Portuguese
Minister from the Brazilian Government.
[10] [The King's letter dismissing the Duke of Clarence from
the office of Lord High Admiral was dated the 11th of
August, 1828. It is published in the Duke of
Wellington's 'Correspondence,' New Series, vol. iv.
p. 595.]
[Page Head: DAWSON'S SPEECH AT DERRY.]
August 22nd, 1828 {p.138}
Went to Stoke on the 19th and came back yesterday. There were the
Dowager Lady Salisbury, Duchess of Newcastle, Worcester and Lady
W. Russell, Giles, Billy Churchill. On the 18th Dawson's
speech[11] at Derry reached us, and I never remember any
occurrence which excited greater surprise. The general impression
was that he made the speech, with the Duke's knowledge and
concurrence, which I never believed. I thought from what he said
to me just before he went to Ireland that he had changed his own
opinion, and now many people say they knew this; but I was little
prepared to hear of his making such a speech at such a place as
Derry, and on such an occasion as a 'Prentice Boy' commemoration.
The rage and fury of the Orangemen there and of the Orange press
here are boundless, and the violence and scurrility of their
abuse are the more absurd because Dawson only described in
glowing colours, and certainly without reserve, the actual state
of Ireland, but did not argue the question at all further than
leaving on his hearers the inevitable inference that he thought
the time for granting emancipation was come. The truth is that
the conversion of one of the most violent anti-Catholics must
strike everybody as a strong argument in favour of the measure,
and they know not by how many and by whom his example may be
followed. The Orangemen are moving heaven and earth to create
disturbances, and their impotent fury shows how low their cause
is sunk. The Catholics, on the contrary, are temperate and calm,
from confidence in their strength and the progressive advance of
their course. But although I think the Catholics are now in a
position which renders their ultimate success certain, I am very
far from participating in the sanguine expectations of those who
think the Duke of Wellington is convinced that the question must
be settled directly, and that he will carry it through in the
ensuing session. In the first place I see clearly that the
Government are extremely annoyed at Dawson's speech. I saw
Goulburn to-day, and though he did not say much, what he did say
was enough to satisfy me of this: 'he hoped that it had been
incorrectly reported.' Dawson has written to the Duke,[12] and
the letter was sent to him to-day. But what has put me in despair
about it is a letter of the Duke's which Drummond read to me
to-day addressed, I do not know to whom, but upon that subject.
It began, 'My dear sir,' and after other matter proceeded nearly
as follows:--'This subject has been more discussed and more
pamphlets have been written upon it in the course of the last
twenty-five years than any other that I can remember. No two
people are agreed upon what ought to be done, and yet the
Government is expected at once to settle the question.' This is
the old argument, as if after thirty years' discussion in every
shape it was not time to settle the question. As if those who
undertake to govern the country were not the men who are bound to
find the means of settling it and allaying the irritation it
causes. And as if, instead of no two persons being agreed upon
the subject, all the ablest and wisest men in the country were
not cordially agreed that complete emancipation is the only
remedy for the evils that exist, and that they are opposed by the
most despicable faction which ever existed, animated by the most
base and sordid motives. This letter was read to me as conveying
the Duke's opinions, which his secretary thought were very sound
and sensible, and which I think evinced a degree of anility quite
pitiable, and proves how little there is to expect from any
liberality and good sense on his part.
[11] [Mr. Peel's confidential letter to the Duke of
Wellington, stating his reluctant conviction that it
was indispensably necessary for the Government to
change its policy on the Catholic question, was written
on the 11th of August, 1828. The letter is published in
Sir Robert Peel's 'Posthumous Memoirs,' vol. i, p. 189.
It is a remarkable circumstance that Mr. Dawson's
speech at Derry was made _just one week afterwards_;
but there is no evidence that he knew of the change in
his brother-in-law's opinion. See for further details
as to the effect of Dawson's speech _infra_.]
[12] [This letter is published in the Duke of Wellington's
'Correspondence,' New Series, vol. iv. p. 633. The Duke
said, 'Dawson's speech is too bad. Surely a man who
does such things ought to be put in a strait
waistcoat.' _Ibid._ p. 636.]
[Page Head: DISMISSAL OF THE LORD HIGH ADMIRAL.]
I do not yet know the whole truth of the Lord High Admiral's
resignation, but it seems that it is not yet certain. Negotiations
on the subject are still going on. I believe he quarrelled with
his council, particularly Cockburn, and that Government took part
with Cockburn. The Duke of Clarence wants to promote deserving
officers, but they oppose it on account of the expense, and they
find in everything great difficulty in keeping him in order. His
resignation will be very unpopular in the navy, for his system of
promotion was more liberal and impartial than that of his
predecessor, whose administration was one perpetual job, and who
made the patronage of the Admiralty instrumental to governing
Scotland. Hitherto the appointments of Government have not been
the most judicious--Lord Belmore to Jamaica, because he is a
Lord, and a very dull one; Lord Strangford to the Brazils, though
the Duke knows as well as anybody that he cannot be trusted, and
was recalled by Canning because he said and did all sorts of
things at Constantinople for which he had no authority, and they
found that no reliance whatever was to be placed in him. Lord
Stuart de Rothesay, too, is sent back to Paris, though personally
obnoxious to the King and universally disliked.
Stoke, August 25th, 1828 {p.141}
Went to Windsor to-day for a Council and came on here after it.
There were the Chancellor, Peel, Fitzgerald, Ellenborough, Sir G.
Murray, the Archbishop, and Bishop of London, who came to do
homage. The King gave the Chancellor a long audience, and another
to Peel, probably to talk over Dawson's speech and Orange
politics. After the Council the King called me and talked to me
about racehorses, which he cares more about than the welfare of
Ireland or the peace of Europe. We walked over the Castle, which
is nearly finished, but too gaudy. The King told me he would go
to Egham races to-morrow. I talked to Fitzgerald about Dawson's
speech. He said he believed Dawson had never told the Duke or
Peel what he meant to do, that he thought he was very bold and
imprudent. However, he was glad of it, as it must assist the
cause, and the moral effect in Ireland would be produced before
the Duke's sentiments could be known. Lord Mount Charles told me
the day before yesterday that the reason the Duke of Clarence had
resigned was, that he had in many instances exceeded his powers,
which had produced remonstrances from the Duke of Wellington,
whereupon the Duke of Clarence tendered his resignation, and the
Duke immediately carried it to the King without asking him to
stay.[13] Afterwards there were some negotiations, when the Duke
of Clarence refused to stay if Cockburn did. They would not,
however, part with Cockburn, but subsequently the Duke shook
hands with him and asked him to dine at Bushy on his birthday. He
said that his successor was not appointed, but it will probably
be Lord Melville. The King has not been well; he goes fishing and
dining at Virginia Water, stays out late, and catches cold.
[13] [A letter from the Duke of Wellington to Sir Robert
Peel, dated the 13th of August, 1828, explains the
circumstances that led to the removal of the Duke of
Clarence from the office of Lord High Admiral. This
letter is published in the first volume of Sir Robert
Peel's 'Posthumous Memoirs on the Catholic Question and
the Repeal of the Corn Laws,' p. 269. The Duke of
Wellington says, 'He behaved very rudely to Cockburn. I
saw Cockburn and Croker, and both agreed in stating
that the machine could no longer work.' In a subsequent
letter the Duke added, 'I quite agree with you that it
is very unfortunate the Duke of Clarence has resigned.
I did everything in my power to avoid that result,
excepting give up Cockburn.' The whole correspondence
is published in the fourth volume of the Duke's
'Correspondence,' New Series.]
August 29th, 1828 {p.142}
Came from Stoke last night. There were the Lievens, Cowper, Lord
Melbourne, Luttrell, Pierre d'Aremberg, Creevy, Russell,
Montrond. The King went to Egham races Tuesday and Thursday, was
very well received and pleased. He was very gracious to me.
Madame de Lieven went over to the Lodge to see Lady Conyngham,
who finding she had never seen Clifden, carried her off there,
ordered luncheon and the pony carriage, took her all over the
place, and then carried her back to Salthill, where the King's
carriage met her and took her back to Virginia Water to dinner.
Lieven told me they had never expected to find this Turkish
expedition an easy business, and had always been prepared for
great difficulties, &c., from which I conclude that they have met
with some check. I met Bachelor, the poor Duke of York's old
servant, and now the King's _valet de chambre_, and he told me
some curious things about the interior of the Palace; but he is
coming to call on me, and I will write down what he tells me
then. There is a report that the Admiralty has been offered to
Lord Melbourne. I asked him (at Stoke), and he said he had never
heard of it.
London, November 25th, 1828 {p.142}
I have not written anything since I left town, because nothing
occurred worth remembering. Yesterday I went to the Council at
Windsor. Most of the Ministers were there, the Recorder, two
foreign Ministers, and the Duke of Clarence. The King seemed to
be very well. The Duke of Wellington did not arrive till late,
and before he was come the King sent for Peel and gave him an
audience of two hours at least. I thought there must be something
in the wind, and was struck with Peel's taking the Duke into one
of the window recesses and talking to him very earnestly as soon
as he came out. I returned to town after the Council, and in the
evening went to the play, and coming out I met Henry de Ros and
Frederick Lamb. The former made me go with him in his carriage,
when he told me what fully explained the cause of Peel's long
audience--that the Duke has at last made up his mind to carry the
Catholic question, and that Peel[14] and the rest of the violent
anti-Catholics are going out; that the Duke's present idea is to
apply to Huskisson, but that nothing will be done or said till
the Ministers assemble in town and hold their cabinets.
[14] [It had not then transpired, nor was it known until
long afterwards, that the proposal to carry Catholic
Emancipation was made by Mr. Peel to the Duke of
Wellington on the 11th of August. Sir Robert Peel
states, however, in his 'Memoir,' p. 269, 'At the close
of the year 1828 little, if any, progress had been made
in removing the difficulties with which the Duke of
Wellington had to contend;' and, p. 274, 'The chief
difficulty was the King. At the commencement of the
month of January 1829 his Majesty had not yet signified
his consent that the whole subject of Ireland,
including the Catholic question, should be taken into
consideration by his confidential servants.']
He told me also that the French Government have at last agreed to
make common cause with us in preventing the Russians from
prosecuting the war against Turkey.
[Page Head: HEALTH AND HABITS OF GEORGE IV.]
December 16th, 1828 {p.143}
A Council at Windsor yesterday; very few present, and no
audiences but Aberdeen for three-quarters of an hour and the Duke
for five minutes. I sent for Bachelor and had a long talk with
him. He said the King was well, but weak, his constitution very
strong, no malady about him, but irritation in the bladder which
he could not get rid of. He thinks the hot rooms and want of air
and exercise do him harm, and that he is getting every day more
averse to exercise and more prone to retirement, which, besides
that it weakens his constitution, is a proof that he is beginning
to break. Bachelor thinks he is in no sort of danger; I think he
will not live more than two years. He says that his attendants
are quite worn out with being always about him, and living in
such hot rooms (which obliges them to drink) and seldom getting
air and exercise. B. is at present well, but he sits up every
other night with the King and never leaves him. He is in high
favour, and Sir William Knighton is now as civil and obliging to
him as he used to be the reverse. The King instructs him in his
duties in the kindest manner, likes to have him about him, and
talks a great deal to him. But his Majesty keeps everybody at a
great distance from him, and all about him are afraid of him,
though he talks to his pages with more openness and familiarity
than to anybody. He thinks Radford (who is dying) is not in such
favour as he was, though he is always there; of O'Reilly the
surgeon, who sees the King every day and carries him all the
gossip he can pick up, Bachelor speaks with very little ceremony.
The King told them the other day that 'O'R. was the damnedest
liar in the world,' and it seems he is often in the habit of
discussing people in this way to his _valets de chambre_. He
reads a great deal, and every morning has his boxes brought to
him and reads their contents. They are brought up by Knighton or
Watson, both of whom have keys of all the boxes. He says there is
not one person about him whom he likes--Mount Charles pretty
well, Taylor better than anybody, Knighton constantly there and
his influence unbounded; he thinks K. can do anything.
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF O'CONNELL.]
December 20th, 1828 {p.144}
Hyde Villiers called on me ten days ago to give me an account of
his visit to Ireland. He seems to have been intimate with several
of the leading men, particularly Shiel, whom all agree in
describing as the cleverest man of his party. He also saw a good
deal of the Lord-Lieutenant;[15] and was struck by his imprudence
and unreserve. He spoke very positively of his determination not
to be a party to any measures contrary to his opinions, and did
not scruple to complain of the little information he received
from the Government here concerning their intentions. He also
appears to have been flattered by O'Connell into entire
confidence in him, and told Villiers that he would trust him
implicitly. O'Connell and Shiel detest each other, though Shiel
does not oppose him. Lawless detests him too, and he does
everything he can to thwart and provoke him, and opposes him in
the Association[16] upon all occasions. Lately in the affair of
the 'exclusive dealing' he met with such opposition in the
Association that it required a great deal of time and management
to get rid of that proposition, although in the end he carried
the matter very triumphantly. But O'Connell, though opposed by a
numerous party in the Association, is all-powerful in the
country, and there is not one individual who has a chance of
supplanting him in the affections of the great mass of the
Catholics. For twenty-five years he has been continually
labouring to obtain that authority and consideration which he
possesses without a rival, and is now so great that they yield
unlimited obedience to his individual will. As an orator he would
probably fail in the English House of Commons; but to a mob,
especially an Irish mob, he is perfect, exactly the style and
manner which suits their tastes and comprehensions, and
consequently his success with them is unbounded. He has a large
landed property, is at the head of his profession, an admirable
lawyer and manager of a cause, and never for a moment diverted by
political or other considerations from the due discharge of his
professional duties. He is besides a man of high moral character
and great probity in private life, and has been for years in the
habit of affording his professional assistance gratis to those of
his own religion who cannot afford to pay for it. These are some
of the grounds of his popularity, to which may be added his
industry and devotion to the Roman Catholic cause; he rises at
three every morning and goes to bed at eight. He possesses a very
retentive memory, and is particularly strong in historical and
constitutional knowledge. The great object of his ambition is to
be at the head of his own profession, and his favourite project
to reform the laws, a task for which he fancies himself eminently
qualified. To accomplish any particular object he cares not to
what charges of partial inconsistency he exposes himself,
trusting to his own ingenuity to exonerate himself from them
afterwards. Neither O'Connell nor Shiel are supposed to be men of
courage, but Lawless is, and he is thought capable of the most
desperate adventures. Shiel is of opinion that the Association
might be suppressed by law; O'Connell thinks it could not, and
that if it might legally it could not practically. O'Connell says
he can keep the country quiet another year certainly, Doyle
thinks not. Doyle is a very able man, a man of the world,
dislikes O'Connell, but is obliged to act in concert with him.
Doyle, conscious of his own talents, is deeply mortified that no
field is open for their display, and he is one of those men who
must be eminent in whatever cause they are engaged. Murray[17] is
a clever man, but not so ambitious as Doyle; Francis Leveson
is extremely cautious, cold in his manners, and therefore
conciliates no general regard in Ireland, where they like an
exactly opposite character. William Lamb was popular beyond all
precedent, but Francis seems to have avoided giving offence to
either party, which is perhaps as much as could have been
expected from him, and in a country where the rival factions are
so exasperated against each other to be able to preserve a
character for impartiality is no small praise. I wrote to my
brother Henry what I have mentioned under the head of November
21st, and in return he told me that it was in contemplation to
put down the Association, and that the law officers in Ireland
had reported that it was practicable, and their opinion had come
over here, but the decision of the Government had not arrived.
[15] [The Marquis of Anglesey was then Lord-Lieutenant of
Ireland.]
[16] [The Catholic Association. The 'exclusive dealing' was
a pledge required of members of the Association not to
deal with Orangemen.]
[17] [Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. Lord
Francis Leveson (afterwards Lord Francis Egerton and
Earl of Ellesmere), Mr. Greville's brother-in-law, was
then Irish Secretary. William Lamb, afterwards Lord
Melbourne, had preceded him in that office. Henry
Greville held a place at the Vice-Regal Court.]
I very soon saw enough to satisfy me that the Duke is
endeavouring to prevail on Peel to stay in office, and his
repeated conferences with the Bishop of Oxford and other bishops
are enough to prove that he is negotiating with the Church, but
nothing transpires of his intentions. Not one word has been said
to Huskisson or any of his friends. My belief is that in that
long conference at Windsor the King tried to prevail on Peel not
to go; since which discussions between Peel, the Duke, and the
Bishop have been going on to see how the matter can be arranged
so as to make Peel's acquiescence palatable to the Church and the
Brunswickers, and perhaps to engage the Duke to modify his
intended measures accordingly. This is conjecture. The Duke is
gone to Wootton and to Middleton; he is always going about.
[Page Head: LORD BELMORE GOVERNOR OF JAMAICA.]
December 21st, 1828 {p.147}
A few days ago I saw Lord Belmore just as he was setting out for
Jamaica. I went to talk to him about my plan.[18] He was very
civil and said he would do all that depended upon him. He does
not seem to be bright, but whatever his talents may be, he seems
to be left to the free exercise of them, for he told me that he
felt his situation to be one of some difficulty, never having
received any instructions (except of course the formal instructions
given to every governor in writing) as to his conduct from the
Secretary of State, having had no conversation with any of the
authorities about the state of the colony, nor any intimation of
their views and intentions in respect to the principal matters of
interest there. He said that as the Assembly of Jamaica is now
sitting, he had proposed to postpone his departure till the end
of their session, when the Bills they passed would come over
here, and he might discuss them with the Government and learn
their sentiments and wishes as to the course he should adopt; a
very sensible proposition. But he received for answer that he had
better go now, for that when these Bills came over here
Parliament would be sitting, and Government would not have
leisure to attend to the affairs of Jamaica. And this is the way
our colonies are governed! Stephen,[19] to whom I told this,
said he was not surprised, for that Sir George Murray did
nothing--never wrote a despatch--had only once since he has been
in office seen Taylor, who has got all the West Indies under his
care.
[18] [Mr. Greville held the office of Secretary of the
Island of Jamaica. The duties of the office were
performed by a deputy paid by the Secretary out of the
fees received in the island. He never visited Jamaica,
and the office held on these conditions was a sinecure;
but he occasionally took part in the affairs of Jamaica
in this country. The 'plan' alluded to in this passage
is unknown to me. Somerset, second Earl of Belmore, had
just been appointed Governor of Jamaica at this time.]
[19] [James Stephen, Esq., then law adviser of the Colonial
Office, and afterwards Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies. Mr. Henry Taylor, the accomplished author of
'Philip von Artevelde,' was at the head of the West
India department of the office. Sir George Murray was
Secretary of State.]
I might as well have put in on the 25th of November what the King
said to me, as it seems to have amused everybody. I was standing
close to him at the Council, and he put down his head and
whispered, 'Which are you for, Cadland or the mare?' (meaning the
match between Cadland and Bess of Bedlam); so I put my head down
too and said, 'The horse;' and then as we retired he said to the
Duke, 'A little bit of Newmarket.'
December 30th, 1828 {p.148}
Hyde Villiers brought me on Thursday or Friday last a copy of the
Duke's letter to Dr. Curtis,[20] which had been sent to him from
Dublin under strict injunction of not showing it. The next day it
appeared in all the newspapers, O'Connell having read it to the
Association. It has made a great noise, and being as usual
ambiguous, both parties affect to consider it to be in their
favour. I fancy the Duke is very angry at its publication, at
least judging from what his secretaries say.
[20] [The Duke of Wellington had corresponded with Dr.
Curtis, the titular Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland,
for many years. Indeed, as appears in the text, he had
known him long before at Salamanca, when this prelate
was at the Irish College there. Several excellent
letters by Dr. Curtis to the Duke are published in the
second volume of the Duke's 'Correspondence,' New
Series. The letter adverted to in the text was that in
which the Duke said (not very wisely) that 'if men
could bury the subject (of Catholic Emancipation) in
oblivion for a short time, it might be possible to
discover a satisfactory remedy.' Curtis put a copy of
the letter in O'Connell's hands, and he read it aloud
at the Catholic Association. Curtis sent a copy of the
letter and his own reply to the Lord-Lieutenant, who
answered him in another letter, in which he said that
'he did not before know the precise sentiments of the
Duke upon the present state of the Catholic question.'
This letter was also made public, and added fuel to the
flames.]
The word _the_ in the first paragraph was substituted for _a_,
and this alteration these blockheads pretend makes a great
difference in the sense. It makes none, and is only worthy of
remark because they probably echo what he has said. It is clear
enough as to his _opinion_, but nothing more. Curtis was in Spain
and imprisoned by the French at Salamanca. After the battle the
Duke delivered him and had a good deal of communication with him.
He returned to Ireland, and from that period has been in
occasional correspondence with the Duke. Curtis had written him a
long letter, desiring information about his intentions, and this
was the answer. A few days ago Hyde Villiers called on the Duke
and placed in his hands the resolutions which were agreed to by a
committee of the general meeting to be held in Dublin next month.
He took them, but said he must decline saying anything; as
Minister of the Crown he could not say a word, as whatever he did
must be done in conjunction with his colleagues and with the
King; that there was a disposition to draw inferences from
everything, as, for example, that a gentleman he had known in
Spain had written to him on the subject, and his answer had been
handed about, and all sorts of inferences drawn from it, which
was very inconvenient, and proved how cautious he must be. No
doubt it was the Curtis correspondence to which he alluded.
1829.
[Page Head: RECALL OF LORD ANGLESEY.]
January 2nd, 1829 {p.149}
Lord Anglesey was recalled last Sunday. The Duke of Wellington
came to see my mother either Saturday or Sunday last, and told
her he had been with the King three hours the day before, talking
to him about Lord A., that his Majesty was furious with him,
thought he took upon himself as if he were King of Ireland, and
was indignant at all he said and all he did. The Duke talked a
great deal about him, but did not say he was recalled, though his
manner was such that he left an impression that he had something
in his mind which he would not let out. He gave it to be
understood, however, that he had been endeavouring to appease the
King, and that Lord A.'s recall was insisted on by his Majesty
against his (the Duke's) desire. I enquired warmly whether he had
asserted or only implied this, because I don't believe one word
of it. I was told that he had only implied it, but had left that
impression. But the Duke complained of Lord A.'s conduct to
himself; that he had at first written him insolent letters, and
latterly had hardly ever written to him at all. My belief is that
the Duke has for some time wished to get rid of Lord Anglesey,
that these Cabinets have been upon this subject, and that his
recall was settled there. As to the King's dictation and the
Duke's submission, I don't believe a word of it. It has been
clear to me for some time that the Irish Government could not
remain in Lord Anglesey's hands. I am very sorry for it, for I
think it will have a bad effect, and have little hope of its
being followed by any measures likely to counteract the evil it
immediately occasions.
January 4th, 1829 {p.150}
I have seen letters from Dublin stating that the immediate cause
of the recall was a letter which Lord Anglesey had written to the
Duke (but what that was I have not ascertained), and that his
imprudence was so great it was impossible he could have gone on.
Certainly the writing and then publishing this letter of Curtis'
is an enormous act of indiscretion. The consternation in Dublin
seems to have been great, and Henry says that if Lord A. does not
decline all demonstrations of popular feeling towards him, he
will leave Ireland as Lord Fitzwilliam did, attended by the whole
population. Yesterday I asked Fitzgerald[21] if it was true that
Lord A. was recalled. He put on a long face, and said 'he did not
know; _recalled_ he certainly was not.' I saw he was not disposed
to be communicative, so I said no more; he, however, began again
of his own accord, and asked me whether I thought, in the event
of Lord A.'s coming away, that Francis Leveson would remain. I
told him under what conditions he had taken the place, viz. that
he was only to stay while Lord A. did; that circumstances might
make a difference, but that I knew nothing. He said he had done
remarkably well, given great satisfaction, and shown great
discretion in a difficult situation; that the rock Lord A. had
split upon was his vanity.
[21] [Right Hon. Vesey Fitzgerald, then President of the
Board of Trade. He was raised to the peerage of the
United Kingdom in 1835, as Baron Fitzgerald and Vesci.]
[Page Head: RECALL OF LORD ANGLESEY.]
January 5th, 1829 {p.150}
The exact history of what took place in Dublin is as follows:--
Lord Anglesey first of all desired George Villiers would get his
letter to Dr. Curtis inserted in the newspaper. He took it to
Shiel, who agreed to write as good an article as he could to go
with it, and then he went to Dr. Murray to inform him (as Dr.
Curtis's friend) of the intended publication, as Curtis himself
was absent, and his consent ought to have been previously
obtained. He went afterwards to the Phoenix Park, and Lord
Anglesey laid the whole case and correspondence before him. Some
time ago the Duke wrote to Lord Anglesey proposing that O'Gorman
Mahon and Steele should be removed from the Commission of the
Peace on account of their conduct to the Sheriff of Clare. Lord
Anglesey wrote word that the subject had engaged his attention,
and he had laid the case before the law officers, who had
reported to him that there were no grounds for any legal
proceedings against them. 'How, therefore,' said the Lord-Lieutenant,
'could I degrade men against whom my law officers advised me that
no charge could be brought?' This was one offence; and another,
that he had countenanced Lord Cloncurry, who, being a member
of the Association, was unworthy to receive the King's representative
and the Chancellor. Lord Anglesey warmly defended Lord Cloncurry
as a magistrate and a man, and appealed to his known loyalty and
respect for the King as a proof that he would never have done
anything derogatory to his own situation. The Duke's letter
he described to have been overbearing and insolent, Lord
Anglesey's[22] temperate, but firm. Lord Anglesey declares that
these were all the grounds of offence he had given. Five weeks
elapsed, during which he heard nothing from the Duke, and at the
end of that time he received his letter of recall, conceived
nearly in these words:--'My dear Lord Anglesey,--I am aware of
the impropriety of having allowed your letter to remain so long
unanswered, but I wished to consult my colleagues, who were out
of town. I have now done so, and they concur with me that with
such a difference of opinion between the King's Minister and the
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the government of that country could
not be conducted by you with advantage to the public service. I
have therefore taken the King's pleasure on the subject, and he
commands me to inform you that you will be immediately relieved
from your government. I will give you the earliest information of
the arrangement which will be made in consequence. Believe me,
&c.' This is nearly the letter.[23] From Lord Anglesey George
Villiers went to Shiel, and with him to O'Connell, to whom Lord
A. desired he would communicate the event. O'Connell was
dreadfully dejected, so much so that Shiel and G. Villiers were
glad to go home and dine with him in order to calm him. They at
length succeeded in doing so, and made him engage to abstain from
any discussion of the recall in the Association the next day (a
promise which he did not keep). Shiel made a very fine speech in
the Association. Nothing, they say, can exceed the general
feeling on the subject, and Lord Anglesey appears to be acting
with great dignity and reserve; he wishes to decline all popular
honours, and he put off going to the play, which he was to have
done.
[22] [The correspondence of Lord Anglesey with the Duke of
Wellington on these charges is now published in the
'Wellington Correspondence,' New Series, vol. v. p.
244.]
[23] [The letter itself is now published in the 'Wellington
Correspondence,' New Series, vol. v. p. 366. Mr.
Greville's version of it differs in no material point
from the original, though the language is slightly
altered.]
January 7th, 1829 {p.152}
The Duke wrote to Francis Leveson to say he must not be surprised
to hear that a letter would reach Lord Anglesey by that day's
post, conveying to him his recall; that the King was so furious
with him that he said he would make any sacrifice rather than
allow him to remain there five minutes longer. His Secretary had
repeatedly remonstrated with the Lord-Lieutenant on his imprudent
language in Ireland, and on the tone of his letters to the Duke,
but that he always defended both on principle. The Duke said that
his letters were most offensive towards him, yet he continued to
declare that he should have been glad to keep Lord Anglesey on
but for the King. The Lord-Lieutenant did not go to the play, but
his family did, and were received with great applause, although
the pit was full of Orangemen. Lord Melville has refused the
Lord-Lieutenancy.
January 11th, 1829 {p.153}
When George Villiers sent me the accounts of what had passed in
Ireland about Lord Anglesey's letter to Curtis I wrote him a long
letter, in which I told him why I thought the letter and its
publication were unjustifiable and indiscreet, and particularly
cautioned him against connecting himself much with the agitator,
on account of the harm it would do him here. He wrote me a long
answer, defending Lord Anglesey and his measures, but I do not
think he makes out a case for him, and if the Lord-Lieutenant
makes in the House of Lords the defence which he proposes to make
I think he will fail; but if he can keep Lord Plunket on his
side, who is now said to be very eager about him, he will do.
Plunket is under the influence of Blake, who keeps, as George
Villiers says, 'Lord Plunket's mind in his breeches' pocket.'
Lord Anglesey has behaved very well since the quarrel, declining
all honours and expressions of public feeling.
[Page Head: THE KING AND THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.]
January 12th, 1829 {p.153}
Lord Mount Charles came to me this morning and consulted me about
resigning his seat at the Treasury. He hates it and is perplexed
with all that has occurred between the Duke and Lord Anglesey. I
advised him to resign, feeling as he does about it. He told me
that he verily believed the King would go mad on the Catholic
question, his violence was so great about it. He is very angry
with him and his father for voting as they do, but they have
agreed never to discuss the matter at all, and his mother never
talks to the King about it. Whenever he does get on it there is
no stopping him. Mount Charles attributes the King's obstinacy to
his recollections of his father and the Duke of York and to the
influence of the Duke of Cumberland. He says that 'his father
would have laid his head on the block rather than yield, and that
he is equally ready to lay his head there in the same cause.' He
is furious with Lord Anglesey, but he will be very much afraid of
him when he sees him. Mount Charles was in the room when Lord
Anglesey took leave of the King on going to Ireland, and the King
said, 'God bless you, Anglesey! I know you are a true Protestant.'
Anglesey answered, 'Sir, I will not be considered either
Protestant or Catholic; I go to Ireland determined to act
impartially between them and without the least bias either one
way or the other.' Lord Anglesey dined with Mount Charles the day
before he went. The same morning he had been with the Duke and
Peel to receive their last instructions, and he came to dinner in
great delight with them, as they had told him they knew he would
govern Ireland with justice and impartiality, and they would give
him no instructions whatever. He showed me a letter from
Mr. Harcourt Lees full of invectives against the Duke and
lamentations at the recall, to show how the Protestants regretted
him as well as the Catholics.
He then talked to me about Knighton, whom the King abhors with a
detestation that could hardly be described. He is afraid of him,
and that is the reason he hates him so bitterly. When alone with
him he is more civil, but when others are present (the family,
for instance) he delights in saying the most mortifying and
disagreeable things to him. He would give the world to get rid of
him, and to have either Taylor or Mount Charles instead, to whom
he has offered the place over and over again, but Mount Charles
not only would not hear of it, but often took Knighton's part
with the King. He says that his language about Knighton is
sometimes of the most unmeasured violence--wishes he was dead,
and one day when the door was open, so that the pages could hear,
he said, 'I wish to God somebody would assassinate Knighton.' In
this way he always speaks of him and uses him. Knighton is
greatly annoyed at it, and is very seldom there. Still it appears
there is some secret chain which binds them together, and which
compels the King to submit to the presence of a man whom he
detests, and induces Knighton to remain in spite of so much
hatred and ill-usage. The King's indolence is so great that it is
next to impossible to get him to do even the most ordinary
business, and Knighton is still the only man who can prevail on
him to sign papers, &c. His greatest delight is to make those who
have business to transact with him, or to lay papers before him,
wait in his anteroom while he is lounging with Mount Charles or
anybody, talking of horses or any trivial matter; and when he is
told, 'Sir, there is Watson waiting,' &c., he replies, 'Damn
Watson; let him wait.' He does it on purpose, and likes it.
[Page Head: CHARACTER OF GEORGE IV.]
This account corresponds with all I have before heard, and
confirms the opinion I have long had that a more contemptible,
cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist than this King,
on whom such flattery is constantly lavished. He has a sort of
capricious good-nature, arising however out of no good principle
or good feeling, but which is of use to him, as it cancels in a
moment and at small cost a long score of misconduct. Princes have
only to behave with common decency and prudence, and they are
sure to be popular, for there is a great and general disposition
to pay court to them. I do not know anybody who is proof against
their seductions when they think fit to use them in the shape of
civility and condescension. The great consolation in all this is
the proof that, so far from deriving happiness from their
grandeur, they are the most miserable of all mankind. The
contrast between their apparent authority and the contradictions
which they practically meet with must be peculiarly galling, more
especially to men whose minds are seldom regulated, as other
men's are, by the beneficial discipline of education and early
collision with their equals. There have been good and wise kings,
but not many of them. Take them one with another they are of an
inferior character, and this I believe to be one of the worst of
the kind. The littleness of his character prevents his displaying
the dangerous faults that belong to great minds, but with vices
and weaknesses of the lowest and most contemptible order it would
be difficult to find a disposition more abundantly furnished.
January 16th, 1829 {p.155}
I went to Windsor to a Council yesterday. There were the Duke,
the Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of
the Mint, Lord President, Lord Aberdeen, Peel, Melville,
Ellenborough. The King kept us waiting rather longer than usual.
He looked very well, and was dressed in a blue great coat, all
over gold frogs and embroidery. Lord Liverpool was there to give
up the late Lord's Garter, and had an audience. He said to me
afterwards that the King had asked him all sorts of questions
about his family concerns, with which he seemed extraordinarily
well acquainted, and to some of which he was puzzled to give an
answer. The King is the greatest master of gossip in the world,
and his curiosity about everybody's affairs is insatiable. I
spoke to Peel about the Council books,[24] which are in the State
Paper Office, and he promised they should be restored to the
Council Office.
[24] [At the fire which took place at Whitehall in 1619
several volumes of the 'Council Register' were lost or
dispersed. Some of these missing volumes were in the
State Paper Office, and two are still in the British
Museum.]
Just before I set off to Windsor I heard from Ireland, and this
is an extract of the letter:--'Lord Anglesey received a letter
from Peel this morning to the effect "that as he had written and
published a letter such as no Lord-Lieutenant was justified in
writing, it was his Majesty's pleasure that Lords Justices should
be immediately appointed." Francis found him very smiling and
glorious, but angry, and declaring that he would do just the same
again if he had to choose his line of conduct.'
_À propos_ of Denman's silk gown, Mount Charles told me the other
day that Denman wrote a most humble apology to the King,
notwithstanding which the Duke of Wellington had great trouble in
mollifying him. At last he consented, but wrote himself on the
document that in consideration of his humble apology his Majesty
forgave him, as he thought it became the King to forgive a
subject, but desired this note might be preserved in the
Treasury, where Mount Charles says it now is.[25]
[25] [This curious correspondence has now been published in
the fifth volume of the Duke of Wellington's
'Despatches,' New Series, pp. 117 and 153. The cause of
the quarrel was a Greek quotation from Dion which
Denman had introduced into one of his speeches at the
Queen's trial. In the King's answer to the memorial
(which answer was drawn up by the Duke of Wellington)
the following passage occurs:--
'The King could not believe that the Greek quotation
referred to had occurred to the mind of the advocate in
the eagerness and heat of his argument, nor that it was
not intended, nor that it had not been sought for and
suggested for the purpose of applying to the person of
the Sovereign a gross insinuation.' Denman, however,
prayed his Majesty to believe that 'no such insinuation
was ever made by him, that the idea of it never entered
his mind,' &c.
The truth about this quotation is this:--During the
Queen's trial Dr. Parr, who was a warm supporter of the
Queen and an intimate friend of Denman, employed
himself in ransacking books for quotations which might
be used in the defence. Thus he lit in Bayle's
Dictionary, article 'Octavia,' upon the answer made by
Pythias, one of the slaves of Octavia, to Tigellinus,
when he was torturing the slaves of the Empress in
order to convict her of adultery. The same answer
occurs in substance in Tacitus' 'Annals,' book xiv.
cap. 60. This Parr sent to Denman, and Denman used it
in his speech. The fact is, therefore, that the
quotation had been 'sought for and suggested' for the
express purpose of saying something personally
offensive to the King. The King's resentment against
Denman did not end here as will be seen lower down,
where he refused to receive the Recorder's report
through the Common Serjeant.]
January 21st, 1829 {p.156}
The sealed orders with which the ships have sailed from Plymouth,
were orders to prevent the Portuguese (who have been sent away)
from landing at Terceira.
Lady Westmeath was the woman meant in the article in the 'Times'
from Ireland about the pension to which Lord Anglesey would not
agree. The story is very true. There was £700 disposable on the
Pension Fund, and the Duke of Wellington desired £400 might be
given to Lady Westmeath, which Lord Anglesey and the Secretary
both protested against, and were resolved to resign rather than
agree to it. They wrote to the Duke such strong remonstrances
that he appears to have desisted from the design, for they heard
no more of it. It is therefore false that this had anything to do
with the recall, though it is by no means improbable that it
served to alienate the Duke from the Marquis and to make him
desire the more to get rid of him. This happened as long ago as
last August, I think.
[Page Head: STATE OF RUSSIA.]
Yesterday the Duke dined with us, in very good spirits, and
agreeable as he always is, though not so communicative and free
as he used to be. He had never told Francis Leveson about the
Duke of Northumberland[26] till Sunday, when he wrote to announce
the appointment. His Grace seems mightily pleased with it, and
fancies that his figure and his fortune are more than enough to
make him a very good Lord-Lieutenant. He says he was obliged to
coax him a little to get him to accept it.
[26] [Hugh, third Duke of Northumberland, was declared
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on the recall of Lord
Anglesey.]
[Page Head: THE EMPEROR ALEXANDER I.]
He said that he was on the best terms with France, talked of
Russia and her losses in the war, adding that the notion of her
power was at an end. He believed that the Russians were
numerically as strong as the Turks in the last campaign, and they
were much more numerous than they said: first, _because_ they
said they were not so; and secondly, that he had other reasons
for believing it; he thought they had begun the campaign with
160,000 men and had lost 120,000.[27] They were talking of St.
Petersburg and its palaces. The Duke said that the fortunes of
the great Russian nobles--the Tolstoys, &c.--were so diminished
that they lived in corners of their great palaces; but this was
owing to the division of property and the great military
colonies, by which the Crown lands were absorbed, and the
Emperors had no longer the means of enriching the nobles by
enormous donations as formerly. When to these circumstances are
added the amelioration of the condition of the serfs, and the
spirit of general improvement, and the growth of Liberal ideas,
generated by intercommunication with the rest of Europe, it is
impossible to doubt that a revolution must overtake Russia within
a short period, and probably the Emperor has undertaken this war
in order to give vent to the restless humours which are beginning
to work. I said so to Lord Bathurst, and he replied that 'he
thought so too, but that the present Emperor was a man of great
firmness,' as if any individual authority or character could stem
the torrent of determined action impelled by universal revolution
of feeling and opinion. He said the late Emperor was so well
aware of this that he died of the vexation it had caused him,
which was aggravated by the reflection that he was in great
measure himself the cause of it. He was so bit by Liberal
opinions, and so delighted with the effects he saw in other
countries flowing from the diffusion of intelligence and freedom,
that he wished to engraft these dangerous exotics upon the rude
and unprepared soil of his own slavish community. When he went to
Oxford he was so captivated with the venerable grandeur of that
University that he declared he would build one when he got
home, and it is equally true that he said he 'would have an
Opposition.' These follies were engendered in the brain of a very
intelligent man by the mixture of such crudities with an
unbounded volition, and the whole fermented by a lively
imagination and a sincere desire to confer great benefits on his
country.
[27] [This seems an extraordinary statement, but it shows
how well informed the Duke was. In Major von Moltke's
narrative of the campaign of 1828 he estimates the
average force of the Russian army at 100,000. But from
May 1828 to February 1829 no less than 210,108 men
passed through the hospitals, or died in them. So that,
as Moltke remarks, in the course of those ten months
every man in his army was twice in hospital. Never did
an army suffer more severely from sickness.]
January 25th, 1829 {p.159}
Lord Anglesey's departure from Dublin was very fine, and his
answer to the addresses good. I fancy George Villiers had some
hand in penning them. The Duke when he dined with us the other
day said that a Russian Extraordinary Ambassador was coming here
to overhaul Lieven, a M. Matuscewitz. He is the principal writer
in their Foreign Office, a clever man. Their despatches are more
able than they used to be, but the Duke said that the Turkish
offices are better conducted than any, and the Turkish Ministers
extremely able. Lord Bathurst told me he had lately read the
minutes of a conversation between the Reis-Effendi and the Allied
Ministers after the battle of Navarino, when they were ignorant
whether the Turk had received intelligence of the event, and that
his superiority over them was exceedingly striking. This was the
conference in which when they asked him 'supposing such an event
had happened, what he should say to it,' he replied 'that in his
country they never named a child till its sex was ascertained.'
Everybody thinks the appointment of the Duke of Northumberland a
very good one, and that the Duke is in great luck to get him. It
is surprising that he should have consented to go, but he
probably likes to do something and display his magnificence. He
is a very good sort of man, with a very narrow understanding, an
eternal talker, and prodigious bore. The Duchess is a more
sensible woman, and amiable and good-humoured. He is supposed to
be ruled in all things by her advice; he has no political
opinions, and though he has hitherto voted against the Catholics,
he is one of the people who pin their faith on the Duke, and who
are made to vote in any way and upon anything as he may please to
desire them.
This pension of Lady Westmeath's makes a great noise, and it is
generally believed that when Lord Anglesey refused to grant it
the Duke got the King's sign manual for it, and the job was done.
The truth is that Lord Anglesey had at first refused, or rather
expressed his disapprobation, and asked the Duke if the King had
commanded it, to which the Duke sent an angry answer that he
might have been sure he should not have recommended it but by the
King's commands. M---- told me the pension (£400) was granted
four months ago, for he signed the warrant himself.
Polignac is gone to Paris, but the Duke thinks not to be
Minister. Polignac told him that he wished to return here, as he
thought he could do more good here than there.
[Page Head: THE STATE PAPER OFFICE.]
Yesterday I went with Amyot to the State Paper Office to look
after my Council books. I found one book belonging to my office
and nearly thirty volumes of the 'Register of the Council of
State,'[28] which I mean to ask for, but which I suppose they
will refuse. Amyot suggests that as all the acts of the Council
of State were illegal and of no authority they cannot be
considered as belonging to the Council Office, and are merely
historical records without an official character. I shall try,
however, to get them. Mr. Lemon showed us a great many curious
papers. When he first had the care of the State papers they were
in the greatest confusion, and he has been diligently employed in
reducing them to order. Every day has brought to light documents
of importance and interest which as they are successively found
are classed and arranged and rendered disposable for literary and
historical purposes.
[28] [Of the time of the Commonwealth. The 'Privy Council
Register' extends from the last years of Henry VIII. to
the present time, not including the Commonwealth.]
Lemon has found papers relating to the Powder Plot alone
sufficient to make two quarto volumes, exceedingly curious; all
Garnett's original papers, and I hope hereafter they will be
published.[29] We saw the famous letter to Lord Mounteagle, of
which Lemon said he had, he thought, discovered the author. It
has been attributed to Mrs. Abington, Lord Mounteagle's sister,
but he thinks it was written by Mrs. Vaux, who was a friend of
hers, and mistress, probably, of Garnett; it is to her that many
of Garnett's letters are addressed. It seems that Mrs. Vaux and
Mrs. Abington were both present at the great meeting of the
conspirators at Hendlip, and he thinks that the latter, desirous
of saving her brother's life, prevailed on Mrs. Vaux to write the
letter, for the handwriting exactly corresponds with some other
writing of hers which he has seen. There is a remarkable paper
written by King James with directions what questions should be
put to Guy Faux, and ending with a recommendation that he should
be tortured first gently, and then more severely as might be
necessary. Then the depositions of Faux in the Tower, which had
been taken down (contrary to his desire) in writing, and which he
was compelled to sign upon the rack; his signature was written in
faint and trembling characters, and his strength had evidently
failed in the middle, for he had only written 'Guido.' There is a
distinct admission in the Plot papers in Garnett's own hand that
he came to a knowledge of the Plot otherwise than by the
Sacrament of Confession, which oversets Lingard; a paragraph by
which it is clear that the Pope knew of it; and a curious paper
in which, having sworn that he had never written certain letters,
which letters were produced when he was taxed with the false
oath, Garnett boldly justifies himself, and says that they ought
not to have questioned him on the subject, having the letters in
their hands, and that he had a right to deny what he believed
they could not prove--a very remarkable exposition of the tenets
of his order and the doctrines of equivocation.
[29] [The substance of these papers has since been published
by the late David Jardine, Esq., in his excellent
'Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot.' (Murray, London,
1857.) Some of the particulars here referred to by Mr.
Greville are not strictly accurate, or at least have
not been confirmed by subsequent investigation. It is
not probable that the letter to Lord Mounteagle was
written by Mrs. Abington or by Mrs. Vaux, nor is it at
all certain that either of these ladies had any
knowledge of the Plot. Mr. Jardine ascribes the letter
to Tresham ('Narrative,' &c., p. 83). Garnett's
admissions are printed in Jardine's Appendix. His
knowledge of the Plot was derived from Greenway, a
priest to whom Catesby had revealed it in confession.
The Pope was probably not privy to the Plot. The
celebrated 'Treatise on Equivocation' was found in
Tresham's desk. The identical copy with Garnett's notes
is still in the Bodleian; it was reprinted in 1851.]
When I came away from the State Paper Office I met George Dawson,
and we had a long conversation about Irish affairs, from which I
gathered what is to be done. The Catholic question is to be
conceded, the elective franchise altered, and the Association
suppressed. This latter is, I take it, to be a preliminary
measure, and I suspect the Duke went to the King on Monday with
the resolution of the Cabinet on the subject, and I think so the
more because the Archbishop was sent for post-haste just before
he went. Dawson talked to me a great deal about his speech at
Derry, and said that so many of his friends were aware of the
change in his opinions that he thought it more fair and manly to
declare them at once in public than to use any dissimulation with
his constituents and leave them to be guessed at, as if he dared
not own them; that he had made a great sacrifice, for he had
risked his seat, which was very secure before, and had quarrelled
with Peel, with his family, and with all his old political
friends and associates. We talked a great deal about Peel, and I
see clearly that he has given way; probably they have compromised
the business, and he agrees to the Emancipation part, in order to
have the Association suppressed and the 40s. freeholders
disfranchised. Lord Anglesey always said that his removal would
facilitate the business, for the Duke wished to have all the
credit of it to himself, and had no mind to divide it with him,
whereas if Lord Anglesey had remained the chief credit would have
fallen to his share.
[Page Head: NAVARINO.]
I met Sir Edward Codrington in the morning, and walked with him
to Downing Street, where he was going to talk to the Duke about
his Navarino business. He is mightily incensed, thinks he has
been scandalously used both by Dudley and Aberdeen, is ready to
tell his story and show his documents to anybody, and says he is
resolved the whole matter shall come out, and in the House of
Commons if he can produce it. God knows how his case will turn
out, but I never saw a man so well satisfied with himself. He
says that the action at Navarino was, as an achievement, nothing
to the affair at Patras, when with one line-of-battle ship, one
frigate, and a corvette he drove before him Ibrahim and four
Turkish admirals and a numerous fleet.
February 4th, 1829 {p.163}
Went to Middleton last Friday; very few people. I returned by
Oxford, and called on Dr. Bandinell, who took me to the Bodleian.
I could not find any Council books, but I had not much time to
devote to the search. Dr. Bandinell promised to inform me if he
could find any books or manuscripts relating to my office. I was
surprised to find in the Bodleian a vast number of books
(manuscripts) which had belonged to Pepys. I came to town on
Monday night, and found that the concession of Catholic
Emancipation was generally known; the 'Times' had an article on
Friday which clearly announced it. The rage and despair of the
Orange papers is very amusing. I have not yet heard how the King
took it all. Glad as I am that the measure is going to be
carried, the conduct of all those who are to assist in it (the
old anti-Catholics) seems to me despicable to the greatest
degree; having opposed it against all reason and common sense for
years past, now that the Duke of Wellington lifts up his finger
they all obey, and without any excuse for their past or present
conduct. The most agreeable event, if it turns out to be true, is
the defection of Dr. Philpots, whose conduct and that of others
of his profession will probably not be without its due effect in
sapping the foundations of the Church. All the details that I
have yet learnt confirm my opinion that the spirit in which the
Duke and his colleagues approach this great measure is not that
of calm and deliberate political reasoning, but a fearful sense
of necessity and danger, to which they submit with extreme
repugnance and with the most miserable feelings of pique and
mortification at being compelled to adopt it. The Duke and Peel
wrote to Francis Leveson, complaining of my brother's having
met Shiel at dinner, and they were so enraged with George
Villiers[30] that they seriously meditated turning him out of his
office. Wretched and contemptible to the greatest degree! They
are now exceedingly annoyed because it is discovered that Woulffe
was once a member of the Association, and would willingly have
him turned out of the place of Assistant-Barrister, which has
just been given to him; but Francis is resolved to maintain him
in it. They say the Duke sent a copy of the King's Speech to Lord
Eldon.
[30] [Mr. George Villiers, then an Irish Commissioner of
Customs (afterwards Earl of Clarendon), had cultivated
the society of Shiel and invited him to dinner. Such an
attention from an English official to an Irish Catholic
was at that time an unheard-of innovation. Shiel told
his host that he had never dined in a Protestant house
before. The Duke of Wellington took great umbrage at
what he considered an unwarrantable breach of official
decorum.]
[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]
February 5th, 1829 {p.164}
Went to Brookes' yesterday, and found all the Whigs very merry at
the Catholic news. Most of them were just come to town and had
heard nothing till they arrived. The old Tories dreadfully
dejected, but obliged to own it was all true; intense curiosity
to hear what Peel will say for himself. The general opinion seems
to be that the Duke has managed the matter extremely well, which
I am disposed to think too, but there is always a disposition to
heap praise upon him whenever it is possible. Nobody yet knows
who are converted and who are not; they talk of nine bishops; I
think he will have them all, and I expect a very great majority
in the House of Lords. Many people expect that Wilmot's plan will
be adopted, restraining the Catholics from voting in matters
concerning the Church, which I do not believe, for Wilmot is at a
discount and his plan is absurd and impracticable. Lord Harrowby,
however, is all for it. I hear many of the Liberals are
exceedingly provoked, and not unnaturally, at the Duke's
effecting this measure, at which they have been so long labouring
in vain, and give as many spiteful flings at him as they can
about the insincerity of his letter to Curtis. It matters very
little now whether he was sincere or not. It evidently was part
of his plan to keep it all secret till it was matured, and as
Curtis chose to ask him questions he was quite right to throw
dust in his eyes.