CHAPTER V.

The Catholic Relief Bill--Inconsistency of the Tories--The

Catholic Association--Dinner at Charles Grant's--The Terceira

Expedition--Tory Discontent--Peel resigns his Seat for Oxford

University--A Blunder in Chancery--The Oxford Election--

Influence of the Duke of Wellington--Debate of Royal Dukes--

Peel beaten--Sir Edward Codrington--Violence of the King--

Intrigues to defeat the Catholic Bill--The Duke of Cumberland--

Furious State of Parties--Matuscewitz--Peel's Speech on

Catholic Emancipation--Exclusion of O'Connell from his Seat for

Clare--Pitt's View of Catholic Emancipation--'Musae

Cateatonenses'--'Thorough'--Mr. Lowther not turned out--Duke of

Newcastle's Audience of George IV.--The King's Personal

Habits--The Debate--Mr. Sadler--Hardness of the Duke of

Wellington--His Duel with Lord Winchelsea--The Bishops and the

Bill--Sir Charles Wetherell--The King on the Duel--Lord

Winchelsea's Pocket-handkerchief--Debate on the Catholic Bill--

The Duke of Richmond--Effects of Dawson's Speech on the King--

The Bill in Jeopardy--Lady Jersey and Lord Anglesey--Lord

Falmouth and Lord Grey--O'Connell at Dinner--The Duke breaks

with Lord Eldon--Hibner the Murderess--Theatrical Fund--The

Levee--The Duke's Carriage stopped--The King's Health--Lady

Conyngham--O'Connell's Seat--Child's Ball at Court--Princess

Victoria--Legal Appointments--Lord Palmerston on Foreign

Affairs--The King and Lord Sefton--The King's Speech on the

Prorogation--Madame du Cayla--George IV.'s Inaccuracy--

Conversation of the Duke of Wellington on the King and the Duke

of Cumberland.

[Page Head: PEEL'S SPEECH ON THE CATHOLIC BILL.]

February 6th, 1829 {p.166}

Parliament met yesterday; a very full attendance and intense

interest and curiosity. The King's Speech, which was long and

better written than usual, was not quite satisfactory to the

Catholics. I met Lord Harrowby coming from the House of Lords,

and he said they did not like it at all; the previous suppression

of the Association was what they disliked. However, all

discontent was removed by Peel's speech, which was deemed (as to

the intentions of Ministers) perfectly satisfactory even by those

who were most prejudiced before against Government. I was in the

House of Commons. Peel was very feeble, and his case for himself

poor and ineffective; all he said was true enough, but it was

only what had been said to him over and over again for years

past, and he did not urge a single argument for acquiescing now

which was not equally applicable to his situation two years ago.

However, everybody was so glad to have the measure carried that

they did not care to attack Peel or his speech, though if there

had been a Brunswicker of any talent in the House he might have

cut it up finely; two or three of them spoke, but wretchedly ill,

and Lord Chandos was not at all violent, which I expected he

would have been. Lord Eldon was violent but impotent, in the

House of Lords, and Lord Bathurst made a sort of explanation

which was very poor.

On leaving the House of Commons I fell in with Burdett, Lord

Sefton, and G. Bentinck, and they all owned that the business is

very handsomely done; and Morpeth and many others whom I saw

afterwards at the Club are quite satisfied. They would have

preferred that the Catholic Relief Bill and the suppression of

the Association should have gone together, but do not make any

difficulties on this head, and acknowledge (which is the truth)

that the Duke was probably obliged to do something to cajole the

Tories, and give some colour to their conduct. I sat next to

Fitzgerald in the House, who is not yet re-elected, and he told

me that this was absolutely necessary. He was of course delighted

and said, 'How right Lord Francis was to trust to the Duke,'

which, however, is all nonsense. He had no reason to trust to him

at all, and I really believe would not have continued in office

as Irish Secretary unless he had adopted this measure. He owned

as Peel was speaking that he was not doing it well; he was feeble

and diffuse in the beginning, and too full of civilities and

appeals to Bankes and his old associates. However, thank God, the

event is accomplished, no matter how; probably it could not have

been done without the concurrence of these Tories, who have, I

think, certainly lost their character by their conduct; and there

is this evil in the history of the measure, that a blow will have

been given to the reputation of public men in general which will,

I strongly suspect, have an important though not immediate effect

upon the aristocratic influence in this country, and tend

remotely to increase the democratic spirit which exists. In all

these proceedings there has been so little of reason, principle,

or consistency; so much of prejudice, subserviency, passion, and

interest, that it is impossible not to feel a disgust to parties

in general. The conduct of those idiots the Brunswickers is

respectable in comparison with such men as the High Churchmen;

and the Whigs and Catholic supporters, however they may have

suffered before, in this matter stand clear and have only grounds

for exultation. They accept the measure with great moderation,

and are not disposed to mar the success of it by the introduction

of any topics likely to create ill blood, nor to damp the ardour

of new converts by throwing their former follies in their faces.

Now, then, the Duke is all-powerful, and of course he will get

all the honour of the day. Not that he does not deserve a great

deal for having made up his mind to the thing; he has managed it

with firmness, prudence, and dexterity; but to O'Connell and the

Association, and those who have fought the battle on both sides

of the water, the success of the measure is due. Indeed, Peel

said as much, for it was the Clare election which convinced both

him and the Duke that it must be done, and from that time the

only question was whether he should be a party to it or not. If

the Irish Catholics had not brought matters to this pass by

agitation and association, things might have remained as they

were for ever, and all these Tories would have voted on till the

day of their death against them.

Mahony, who is here, has written over to O'Connell, as have all

the other Catholics, to implore him to use his whole influence to

procure the dissolution of the Association, and it is said that

O'Connell had an idea of resigning his seat for Clare to Vesey,

on the ground that, having turned him out because he had joined a

Government hostile to their claims, he owed him this reparation

on finding it not to be the case. But I doubt whether this scheme

is practicable; still, I think if O'Connell could do it it would

be a good thing, and serve to reconcile the people here to him,

and give a great lift to his character. I expect to hear that the

Association has dissolved itself on receiving intelligence of the

proceedings in the House of Commons. Lord Anglesey spoke very

well, but nobody will care for his case now; besides, I doubt his

making out a good one. The fact is that they laid a trap for him,

and that he fell into it; that the Duke's letters became more

insulting, and that a prudent man would have avoided the snare

into which his high spirit and passion precipitated him.

[Page Head: DINNER AT CHARLES GRANT'S]

February 8th, 1829

Peel spoke on Friday night better than he did on Thursday.

Huskisson made a spiteful speech, and George Dawson one which I

heard Huskisson say he thought one of the neatest speeches he had

ever heard. I dined yesterday with all the Huskissonians at

Grant's. There were there Lords Granville, Palmerston, and

Melbourne, Huskisson, Warrender, and one or two more. Huskisson

is in good humour and spirits, but rather bitter; he said that if

Peel had asked the advice of a friend what he should do, the

advice would have been for his own honour to resign. I said I did

not think Peel would have got credit by resigning. He said, 'But

don't you think he has quite lost it by staying in?' He owned,

however, that the Duke could not have carried it without Peel,

that his influence with the Church party is so great that his

continuance was indispensable to the Duke.

This affair of the Portuguese at Terceira[1] (which certainly,

unless it can be explained, seems a gross outrage) they all fell

upon very severely, and Lord Harrowby told me afterwards he could

not understand it, and thought for the honour of the country it

should be explained forthwith.

[1] [In December 1828 an expedition, consisting of 652

Portuguese refugees of the party of the Queen, sailed

from England for Terceira in four vessels, under the

command of Count Saldanha. Terceira held for the Queen,

and arms and ammunition had previously been sent them

from England. The British Government ordered Captain

Walpole, of the 'Ranger' to stop this expedition off

Terceira, which he did by firing a gun into Saldanha's

ship. The ground taken by the Duke of Wellington in

defence of this measure was his resolution to maintain

the neutrality of England between the two parties then

contending for the Crown of Portugal. But the

proceeding was vehemently attacked in Parliament and

elsewhere.]

[Page Head: DISCONTENT OF THE TORIES.]

We are now beginning to discover different people's feelings

about this Catholic business, and it is clear that many of the

great Tories are deeply offended that the Duke was not more

communicative to them, principally, it seems, because they have

continued to talk in an opposite sense and in their old strain up

to the last moment, thereby committing themselves, and thus

becoming ridiculous by the sudden turn they are obliged to make.

This they cannot forgive, and many of them are extremely out of

humour, although not disposed to oppose the Duke. The Duke of

Rutland means to go to Belvoir, and not vote at all. The Duke of

Beaufort does not like it, but will support the measure. Lowther

has been to the King, and it is supposed he has resigned. They

complain that the Duke has thrown them over, still nobody doubts

that he will have great majorities in both Houses. It was

asserted most positively at Brookes' yesterday that Peel's offer

of resigning his seat at Oxford had been accepted. In Dublin the

moderate people are furious with O'Connell for his abuse of

everybody. There is no getting over the fact that he it is who

has brought matters to this conclusion, and that but for him the

Catholic question would never have been carried; but his

violence, bad taste, and scurrility have made him 'lose the

lustre of his former praise.'

February 9th, 1829 {p.179}

I called at Devonshire House in the morning, and there found

Princess Lieven very eloquent and very angry about the Terceira

business, which certainly requires explanation. She is very

hostile to the Duke, which is natural, as he is anti-Russian, and

they have never got over their old quarrel. Saldanha got up a

_coup de théâtre_ on board his ship. When Walpole fired on him a

man was killed, and when the English officer came on board he had

the corpse stretched out and covered by a cloak, which was

suddenly withdrawn, and Saldanha said, 'Voilà un fidèle sujet de

la Reine, qui a toujours été loyal, assassiné,' &c.

Went from thence to Mrs. Arbuthnot, who declaimed against

O'Connell and wants to have a provision in the Bill to prevent

his sitting for Clare, which I trust is only her folly, and that

there is no chance of such a thing. The Duke came in while I was

there. He said he had no doubt he should do very well in the

House of Lords, but up to that time he could only (that he knew

of for certain) reduce the majority of last year to twenty. He

did not count bishops, of whom he said he knew nothing, but the

three Irish bishops would vote with him. There were many others

he did not doubt would, but he could only count upon that number.

He held some proxies, which he said he would not make use of,

such as Lord Strangford's, as he could not hear from him in time,

and would not use anybody's proxy for this question who had voted

against it before. I told him how peevish the Duke of Rutland,

and Beaufort, and others of the High Tories were, but he only

laughed. In the evening Fitzgerald told me that the Convocation

at Oxford had accepted Peel's resignation of his seat for the

University, but left the time to him. It seems to me that this

affair was mismanaged. In the first instance Peel wrote to the

Dean of Christ Church, but he and Lloyd[2] agreed that he ought

to write to the Vice-Chancellor, which he did. The Vice-Chancellor

did not read his letter till after they had voted the address

to Parliament by three to one, after which it was difficult for

them to express anything but disapprobation of Peel's conduct;

whereas if the Vice-Chancellor had read it first, probably the

petition would not have been carried, or at any rate not by so

large a majority. He had better have carried his Bill through

and then resigned, when I have no doubt he would have been

re-elected; very likely he may be as it is.

[2] [The Bishop of Oxford, one of Sir Robert Peel's most

intimate friends.]

Tom Duncombe is going to make another appearance on the boards of

St. Stephen's, on the Terceira business, and he is to give notice

to-night. He has been with Palmella and Frederick Lamb, who are

both to assist in getting up his case, and he expects to be

supported by some of the Whigs and by the Huskissonians, which

latter are evidently anxious to do anything they can to embarrass

the Government. I know nothing of the case, which, _primâ facie_,

appears much against Government; but the moment is so ill-chosen,

in the midst of this great pending affair, that I think they will

make nothing of it. Palmella is a great fool for his pains, for

in clamouring against the Duke he is only kicking against the

pricks. As to Duncombe, he is egged on by Lambton and instructed

by Henry de Ros, who cares nothing about the matter, and only

does it for the fun of the thing. I have no idea but that

Duncombe must cut a sorry figure when he steps out of the line of

personal abuse and impertinence.

[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

February 11th, 1829 {p.172}

Nothing is thought of or talked of but the Catholic question;

what Peers and bishops will vote for it? who voted before against

it? There is hardly any other feeling than that of satisfaction,

except on the part of the ultra-Tories, who do not attempt to

conceal their rage and vexation; the moderate Tories, who are

mortified at not having been told of what was going on; and

Huskisson's party, who would have been glad to have a share in

the business, and who now see themselves in all probability

excluded for ever. O'Connell arrived yesterday; it is supposed he

will not take his seat, but he does not seem inclined to

co-operate with Government in keeping things quiet. However, his

real disposition is not yet known, and probably he has not made

up his mind what to do, but waits for events. Notwithstanding the

declaration of the bishops, I do not believe they will vote

against Government. Peel spoke very well last night, and severely

trimmed old Bankes, which gives me great pleasure, so much do I

hate that old worn-out set. How this change of measures changes

one's whole way of thinking; though I have nothing to do with

politics, I cannot help being influenced to an extraordinary

degree by what has passed, and can understand from my own

feelings how those who are deeply engaged may be biassed by the

prejudices and attachments of party without any imputation

against their sincerity or judgment. When we see men pursuing a

course of which we greatly disapprove, all their actions and

motives are suspected by us, and _vice versâ_. We lend a willing

ear to imputations of vanity, interest, and other unworthy

motives, and when we cannot explain or comprehend the particulars

of men's conduct, we judge them unfavourably while we are opposed

to their measures; but when they do what we wish, we see the same

things very differently, and begin to hesitate about the justice

of our censures and the suspicions which we previously entertained.

It is pretty clear that the Duke will have a good majority in the

House of Lords, and that many Peers and bishops will find excuses

between this and then for voting with him or remaining neutral.

A ridiculous thing happened the other day in the Vice-Chancellor's

Court. Sugden had taken a brief on each side of a case without

knowing it. Home, who opened on one side and was followed by

another lawyer, was to be answered by Sugden; but he, having got

hold of the wrong brief, spoke the same way as Home. The

Vice-Chancellor said coolly, 'Mr. Sugden is with you?' 'Sir,'

said Home, 'his argument is with us, but he is engaged on the

other side.' Finding himself in a scrape, he said 'it was true he

held a brief for the other party, but for no client would he ever

argue against what he knew to be a clear rule of law.' However,

the Court decided against them all.

February 13th, 1829 {p.173}

Still the Catholic question and the probable numbers in the House

of Lords; nobody talks of anything else. Lord Winchelsea makes an

ass of himself, and would like to be sent to the Tower, but

nobody will mind anything such a blockhead says. Lord Holland

talks of a majority of sixty in the Lords. I walked with

Ebrington to O'Connell's door the other day; he went in. The next

day I asked him what had passed. He said that he had pressed him

strongly to dissolve the Association; O'Connell said he could not

press it himself, but would write to Ireland that it was the

unanimous opinion of all the friends of the cause here that it

should be done. The fact is, he does not dare to acquiesce in all

the measures of Government, though there is little doubt but that

he desires to see an end to associations and agitations. Lady

Jersey affects to be entirely in the Duke's confidence. She said

to Lord Granville at Madame de Lieven's the other night that 'she

made it a rule never to talk to the Duke about affairs in

public,' and she said to me last night that she had known what

was to be done about the Catholics all along. Certainly she

contrives to make the Duke see a great deal of her, for he calls

on her, and writes to her perpetually, but I doubt whether he

tells her much of anything. Some of the household have made a

struggle to be exempted from the general obligation on all

members of Government to vote for the Bill, but the Duke will not

stand it, and they must all vote or go out. The Privy Seal was

offered to Lord Westmoreland, but he refused, and his answer was

good--that if he had been in the Cabinet, he might possibly have

seen the same grounds for changing his mind on the Catholic

question that the other Ministers did; but not having had those

opportunities, he retained his former opinions, and therefore

could not accept office.

[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

February 22nd, 1829 {p.174}

Went to Newmarket last Sunday and came back on Thursday. Still

the Catholic question and nothing else. Everybody believed that

the Duke of Cumberland would support Government till he made

this last speech. He went to the King, who desired him to call

on the Duke, and when he got to town he went uninvited to dine

with him. There has been nothing of consequence in either House,

except the dressing which Lord Plunket gave Lord Eldon, though

that hard-bitten old dog shows capital fight. Peel has got a

most active and intelligent committee at Oxford, and they

consider his election safe. Inglis's committee, on the contrary,

is composed of men not much better than old women, except Fynes

Clinton, the chairman. Every day the majority promises to be

greater in the House of Lords, but it is very ridiculous to see

the faces many of these Tory Lords make at swallowing the

bitter pill. Too great a noise is made about Peel and his

sacrifices, but he must be supported and praised at this

juncture. It is not for those who have been labouring in this

cause, and want his assistance, to reject him or treat him

uncivilly now that he tenders it. But as to the body of the High

Tories, it is impossible not to regard their conduct with

disgust and contempt, for now they feel only for themselves,

and it is not apprehension of those dangers they have been

constantly crying out about that affects them, but the necessity

they are under of making such a sudden turn, and bitter

mortification at having been kept in total ignorance, and,

consequently, having been led to hold the same violent language

up to the last moment. If Canning had lived, God knows what

would have happened, for they never would have turned round for

him as they are now about to do for the Duke. The circumstances

of the case are just the same; since 1825 the same game has been

going on in Ireland, and in the same manner, and the Clare

election was only what had happened at Waterford before. All

this has given a blow to the aristocracy, which men only laugh

at now, but of which the effects will be felt some day or other.

Who will have any dependence hereafter on the steadiness and

consistency of public men, and what credit will be given to

professions and declarations? I am glad to see them dragged

through the mire, as far as the individuals are concerned, but I

am sorry for the effect that such conduct is likely to produce.

There was a capital paper of Cobbett's yesterday, in his best

style. Many Liberals are uneasy about what are called the

securities, and when the Duke tells Lord Colchester that if he

will wait he will be satisfied with the Bill, it is enough to

make them so; but my hopes predominate over my fears. Yesterday

Vesey Fitzgerald said that 'we had not yet seen what some people

might consider the objectionable parts of the measure, but that,

though certain things might be necessary, the Government are

impressed with the paramount necessity of not leaving the

Catholic question behind them, and that the Duke was a man of

too firm a mind not to go through with it;' and I think he said

distinctly that Catholics and Protestants must be placed on an

equal footing, or something to that effect. He went off into a

panegyric on the Duke, and said that seeing him as he did for

several hours every day, he had opportunities of finding out

what an extraordinary man he was, and that it was remarkable

what complete ascendency he had acquired over all who were about

him. The English of this is (what everybody knew) that he

dictates to his Cabinet. The fact is, he is a man of great

energy, decision, and authority, and his character has been

formed by the events of his life, and by the extraordinary

circumstances which have raised him to a situation higher than

any subject has attained in modern times. That his great

influence is indispensable to carry this question, and therefore

most useful at this time, cannot be doubted, for he can address

the King in a style which no other Minister could adopt. He

treats with him as with an equal, and the King stands completely

in awe of him. It will be long before a correct and impartial

estimate is formed of the Duke's character and abilities; his

talents, however, must be of a very superior, though not of the

most shining description. Whatever he may be, he is at this

moment one of the most powerful Ministers this country has ever

seen. The greatest Ministers have been obliged to bend to the

King, or the aristocracy, or the Commons, but he commands them

all. M---- told me that he had not seen the King, but that he

heard he was as sulky as a bear, and that he was sure he would

be very glad if anything happened to defeat this measure, though

he is too much afraid of the Duke to do anything himself tending

to thwart it.

The Emperor of Russia is extremely disgusted at the language of

the newspapers here, and desired his Minister to complain of it,

and the Duke wrote the answer himself, in which he entered at

great length into the character and utility of the press in this

country, a dissertation affording a proof certainly of his

quickness and industry, overwhelmed as he is with business. The

Duke of Richmond offered to give up his Garter, but the Duke

would not take it back.

[Page Head: DEBATE OF THE ROYAL DUKES.]

February 26th, 1829 {p.177}

The debate on Monday night in the House of Lords was very

amusing. It was understood the Duke of Clarence was to speak, and

there was a good deal of curiosity to hear him. Lord Bathurst was

in a great fright lest he should be violent and foolish. He made

a very tolerable speech, of course with a good deal of stuff in

it, but such as it was it has exceedingly disconcerted the other

party. The three royal Dukes Clarence, Cumberland, and Sussex got

up one after another, and attacked each other (that is, Clarence

and Sussex attacked Cumberland, and he them) very vehemently, and

they used towards each other language that nobody else could have

ventured to employ; so it was a very droll scene. The Duke of

Clarence said the attacks on the Duke [of Wellington] had been

_infamous_; the Duke of Cumberland took this to himself, but when

he began to answer it could not recollect the expression, which

the Duke of Clarence directly supplied. 'I said "infamous."' The

Duke of Sussex said that the Duke of Clarence had not intended to

apply the word to the Duke of Cumberland, but if he chose to take

it to himself he might. Then the Duke of Clarence said that the

Duke of Cumberland had lived so long abroad that he had forgotten

there was such a thing as freedom of debate.

February 27th, 1829 {p.177}

They say Plunket made one of the best speeches he ever delivered

last night, and Lord Anglesey spoke very well. There was hardly

anybody in the House. Peel's election [Oxford University] is

going on ill. The Convocation presents a most disgraceful scene

of riot and uproar. I went to the Committee Room last night at

twelve, and found nobody there but Dr. Russell, the head-master

of the Charterhouse, who was waiting for Hobhouse and amusing

himself by correcting his boys' exercises. He knew me, though he

had not seen me for nearly twenty years, when I was at school. I

shall be sorry if Peel does not come in, not that I care much for

him, but because I cannot bear that his opponents should have a

triumph.

Lady Georgiana Bathurst told me she had had a great scene with

the Duke of Cumberland. She told him not to be factious and to go

back to Germany; he was very angry, and after much argument and

many reproaches they made it up, embraced, and he shed a flood of

tears.

I met with these lines in 'The Duke of Milan' (Massinger), which

are very applicable to the Duke in his dealings with his Cabinet

and his old friends the Tories:--

You never heard the motives that induced him

To this strange course? No; these are cabinet councils,

And not to be communicated but

To such as are his own and sure. Alas!

We fill up empty places, and in public

Are taught to give our suffrages to that

Which was before determined.

March 1st, 1829 {p.178}

As the time draws near for the development of the plans of

Government a good deal of uneasiness and doubt prevails, though

the general disposition is to rely on the Duke of Wellington's

firmness and decision and to hope for the best. Peel's defeat at

Oxford,[3] though not likely to have any effect on the general

measure, is unlucky, because it serves to animate the anti-Catholics;

and had he succeeded, his success would have gone far to silence,

as it must have greatly discouraged, them. Then the King gives

the Ministers uneasiness, for the Duke of Cumberland has been

tampering with him, and through the agency of Lord Farnborough

great attempts have been made to induce him to throw obstacles in

the way of the measures. He is very well inclined, and there is

nothing false or base he would not do if he dared, but he is such

a coward, and stands in such awe of the Duke, that I don't think

anything serious is to be apprehended from him. There never was

anything so mismanaged as the whole affair of Oxford. First the

letter Peel wrote was very injudicious; it was a tender of

resignation, which being received just after the vote of

Convocation, they were obliged to accept it. Then he should

never have stood unless he had been sure of success, and it

appears now that his canvass never promised well from the

beginning. He should have taken the Chiltern Hundreds, and

immediately informed them that he had done so. Probably no

opposition would have been made, but after having accepted his

resignation they could not avoid putting up another man. It

appears that an immense number of parsons came to vote of whose

intentions both parties were ignorant, and they almost all voted

for Inglis.

[3] [Upon the 4th of February Mr. Peel resigned his seat

for the University of Oxford, in consequence of the

change of his opinions on the Catholic question. A

contest ensued, Sir Robert Harry Inglis being the

candidate opposed to Peel. Inglis was returned by a

majority of 146. Mr. Peel sat for the borough of

Westbury during the ensuing debates.]

[Page Head: SIR E. CODRINGTON AND THE DUKE.]

Codrington was at Brookes' yesterday, telling everybody who would

listen to him what had passed at an interview, that I have

mentioned before, with the Duke of Wellington, and how ill the

Duke had treated him. He said the Duke assured him that neither

he nor any of his colleagues, nor the Government collectively,

had any sort of hostility to him, but, on the contrary, regarded

him as a very meritorious officer, &c. He then said, 'May I,

then, ask why I was recalled?' The Duke said, 'Because you did

not understand your instructions in the sense in which they were

intended by us.' He replied that he had understood them in their

plain obvious sense, and that everybody else who had seen them

understood them in the same way--Adam, Ponsonby, Guilleminot,

&c.--and then he asked the Duke to point out the passages in

which they differed, to which he said, 'You must excuse me.' All

this he was telling, and it may be very true, and that he is very

ill-used; but if he means to bring his case before Parliament, he

is unwise to chatter about it at Brookes', particularly to Lord

Lynedoch, to whom he was addressing himself, who is not likely to

take part with him against the Duke.

March 2nd, 1829 {p.179}

Saw M---- yesterday; he has been at Windsor for several days, and

confirmed all that I had heard before about the King. The Duke of

Cumberland has worked him into a state of frenzy, and he talks of

nothing but the Catholic question in the most violent strain.

M---- told me that his Majesty desired him to tell his household

that he wished them to vote against the Bill, which M---- of

course refused to do. I asked him if he had told the Duke of

Wellington this; he said he had not, but that the day the

Ministers came to Windsor for the Council (Thursday last, I

think) he did speak to Peel, and told him the King's violence was

quite alarming. Peel said he was afraid the King was greatly

excited, or something to this effect, but seemed embarrassed and

not very willing to talk about it. The result, however, was that

the Duke went to him on Friday, and was with him six hours, and

spoke to his Majesty so seriously and so firmly that he will now

be quiet. Why the Duke does not insist upon his not seeing the

Duke of Cumberland I cannot imagine. There never was such a man,

or behaviour so atrocious as his--a mixture of narrow-mindedness,

selfishness, truckling, blustering, and duplicity, with no object

but self, his own ease, and the gratification of his own fancies

and prejudices, without regard to the advice and opinion of the

wisest and best informed men or to the interests and tranquillity

of the country.

March 3rd, 1829 {p.180}

Called on H. de Ros yesterday morning, who told me that the Duke

of Cumberland and his party are still active and very sanguine.

Madame de Lieven is in all his confidence, who, out of hatred to

the Duke, would do anything to contribute to his overthrow. The

Duke of Cumberland tells her everything, and makes her a medium

of communication with the Huskisson party, who, being animated by

similar sentiments towards the Duke, the Tories think would

gladly join them in making a party when the way is clear for

them. The Chancellor went to Windsor on Sunday, and on to

Strathfieldsaye at night, where he arrived at three in the

morning. Yesterday the Duke came to town, but called at Windsor

on his way. Dawson, however, told me that he believed the Duke in

_his_ interview on Friday had settled everything with the King,

and had received most positive assurances from him that no

further difficulties should be made; but it is quite impossible

to trust him.

[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

March 4th, 1829 {p.180}

Nothing could exceed the consternation which prevailed yesterday

about this Catholic business. The advocates of the Bill and

friends of Government were in indescribable alarm, and not

without good cause. All yesterday it was thought quite uncertain

whether the Duke's resignation would not take place, and the

Chancellor himself said that nothing was more likely than that

they should all go out. On Sunday the King sent for the

Chancellor; he went, and had an audience in which the King

pretended that he had not been made aware of all the provisions

of the Bill, that the securities did not satisfy him, and that he

could not consent to it. The Chancellor could do nothing

with him; so instead of returning to town he went on to

Strathfieldsaye, where the Duke was gone to receive the Judges.

There he arrived at three in the morning, had a conference of two

hours with the Duke, and returned to town quite exhausted, to be

in the House of Lords at ten in the morning. The Duke called at

Windsor on his way to town on Monday, and had a conversation with

the King, in which he told him it was now impossible for him to

recede, and that if his Majesty made any more difficulties he

must instantly resign. The King said he thought he would not

desert him under any circumstances, and tried in vain to move

him, which not being able to do, he said that he must take a day

to consider his final determination, and would communicate it.

This he did yesterday afternoon, and he consented to let the Bill

go on. There was a Cabinet in the morning, and another in the

evening, the latter about the details of the Bill, for Francis

Leveson and Doherty were both present.

I met Lord Grey at dinner, and in the evening at Brookes' had a

great deal of conversation with Scarlett, Duncannon, and Spring

Rice. They are all much alarmed, and think the case full of

difficulties, not only from the violence and wavering of the

King, but from the great objections which so many people have to

the alteration of the elective franchise. Duncannon says nothing

shall induce him to support it, and he would rather defeat the

whole measure than consent to it; Spring Rice, on the contrary,

is ready to swallow anything to get Emancipation. The object of

the anti-Catholics is to take advantage of this disunion and of

the various circumstances which throw difficulties in the way of

Government, and they think, by availing themselves of them

dexterously, they will be able to defeat the measure. They all

seem to think that the Oxford election has been attended with

most prejudicial effects to the cause. It has served for an

argument to the Cumberland faction with the King, and has

influenced his Majesty very much.

Huskisson made a speech last night which must put an end to any

hopes of assistance to the Opposition from him and his party,

which it is probable they looked to before, and I dare say the

Duke of Cumberland has held out such hopes to the King. The

correspondence between the Duke of Wellington and the Duke of

Cumberland was pretty violent, I believe, but the Duke of

Cumberland misrepresents what passed both in it and at their

interview. He declared to the Duke that he would not interfere in

any manner, but refused to leave the country; to Madame de Lieven

he said that the Duke had tried everything--entreaties, threats,

and bribes--but that he had told him he would not go away, and

would do all he could to defeat his measures, and that if he were

to offer him £100,000 to go to Calais he would not take it. The

degree of agitation, alternate hopes and fears, and excitement of

every kind cannot be conceived unless seen and mixed in as I see

and mix in it. Spring Rice said last night he thought those next

four days to come would be the most important in the history of

the country of any for ages past, and so they are. I was told

last night that Knighton has been co-operating with the Duke of

Cumberland, and done a great deal of mischief, and that he has

reason to think that K. is intriguing deeply, with the design of

expelling the Conyngham family from Windsor. This I do not

believe, and it seems quite inconsistent with what I am also

told--that the King's dislike of Knighton, and his desire of

getting rid of him, is just the same, and that no day passes that

he does not offer Mount Charles Knighton's place, and, what is

more, that Knighton presses him to take it.

March 5th, 1829 {p.182}

Great alarm again yesterday because the Duke, the Chancellor, and

Peel went down to Windsor again. Dined at Prince Lieven's. In the

evening we learned that everything was settled--that as soon as

the King found the Duke would really leave him unless he gave

way, he yielded directly, and that if the Duke had told him so at

first he would not have made all this bother. The Duke of

Cumberland was there (at Lieven's), but did not stay long. I sat

next to Matuscewitz (the Russian who is come over on a special

mission to assist Lieven), and asked him if he did not think we

were a most extraordinary people, and seeing all that goes on, as

he must do, without any prejudices about persons or things, if it

was not marvellous to behold the violence which prevailed in the

Catholic discussion. He owned that it was inconceivable, and,

notwithstanding all he had heard and read of our history for some

years past, he had no idea that so much rage and animosity could

have been manifested and that the anti-Popery spirit was still so

vigorous. The day, however, is at last arrived, and to-night the

measure will be introduced. But the Duke of Cumberland and his

faction by no means abandon all hopes of being able to throw over

the Bill in its progress, and they will leave no stone unturned

to effect their purpose and to work on the King's mind while it

is going on.

[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

March 6th, 1829

Peel brought on the Catholic question last night in a speech of

four hours, and said to be far the best he ever made. It is full

of his never-failing fault, egotism, but certainly very able,

plain, clear, and statesmanlike, and the peroration very

eloquent. The University of Oxford should have been there in a

body to hear the member they have rejected and him whom they have

chosen in his place. The House was crammed to suffocation, and

the lobby likewise. The cheering was loud and frequent, and often

burst upon the impatient listener without. I went to Brookes' and

found them all just come from the House, full of satisfaction at

Peel's speech and the liberality of the measure, and in great

admiration of Murray's. The general disposition seemed to be to

support both the Bills, and they argued justly who said that

those who would have supported the whole measure if it had been

in one Bill ought not to take advantage of there being two to

oppose the one they dislike. The part that is the most objectionable

is making the measure so far prospective ('hereafter to be

elected') as to exclude O'Connell from Clare, more particularly

after the decision of the Committee in his favour. Six weeks ago

Mrs. Arbuthnot told me that it was intended to exclude him, but I

did not believe her. It seemed to me too improbable, and I never

thought more about it. If they persist in this it is nothing

short of madness, and I agree with Spring Rice, who said last

night that instead of excluding him you should pay him to come

into Parliament, and rather buy a seat for him than let him

remain out. If they keep him out it can only be from wretched

motives of personal spite, and to revenge themselves on him for

having compelled them to take the course they have adopted. The

imprudence of this exception is obvious, for when pacification is

your object, and to heal old wounds your great desire, why begin

by opening new ones and by exasperating the man who has the

greatest power of doing mischief and creating disturbance and

discontent in Ireland? It is desirable to reconcile the Irish to

the measures of disfranchisement, and to allow as much time as

possible to elapse before the new system comes into practical

operation. By preventing O'Connell from taking his seat

his wrongs are identified with those of the disfranchised

freeholders. He will have every motive for exasperating the

public mind and exciting universal dissatisfaction, and there

will be another Clare election, and a theatre for the display of

every angry passion which interest or revenge can possibly put in

action. It is remarkable that attacks, I will not say upon the

Church, but upon Churchmen, are now made in both Houses with much

approbation. The Oxford parsons behaved so abominably at the

election that they have laid themselves open to the severest

strictures, and last night Lord Wharncliffe in one House and

Murray in the other commented on the general conduct of Churchmen

at this crisis with a severity which was by no means displeasing

except to the bishops. I am convinced that very few years will

elapse before the Church will really be in danger. People will

grow tired of paying so dearly for so bad an article.

[Page Head: DIVISION ON THE CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

March 8th, 1829 {p.185}

Yesterday the list came out of those who had voted on the

Catholic question, by which it appeared that several people had

voted against the Government (particularly all the Lowthers) who

were expected to vote with them, and of course this will be a

test by which the Duke's strength and absoluteness may be tried,

so much so that it is very generally thought that if he permits

them to vote with impunity he will lose the question. It was said

in the evening that Lowther and Birkett had resigned, but Lord

Aberdeen, whom I met at dinner, said they had not at five o'clock

yesterday evening. It is, I think, impossible for the Duke to

excuse anybody who votes against him or stays away. Dined at Agar

Ellis's and met Harrowbys, Stanleys, Aberdeen, &c. Lord Harrowby

thought Peel's speech extremely able and judicious. He said that

Lord Eldon had asserted that Mr. Pitt's opinions had been changed

on this question, which was entirely false, for he had been much

more intimate with Mr. Pitt than Lord Eldon ever was, and had

repeatedly discussed the question with him, and had never found

the slightest alteration in his sentiments. He had deprecated

bringing it on because at that moment he was convinced that it

would have driven the King mad and raised a prodigious ferment in

England. He talked a great deal of Fox and Pitt, and said that

the natural disposition of the former was to arbitrary power and

that of the latter to be a reformer, so that circumstances drove

each into the course the other was intended for by nature. Lord

North's letter to Fox when he dismissed him in 1776 was, 'The

King has ordered a new commission of the Treasury to be made out,

in which I do not see your name.' How dear this cost him and what

an influence that note may have had on the affairs of the country

and on Fox's subsequent life! They afterwards talked of the

'Cateatonenses' written by Canning, Frere, and G. Ellis. Lady

Morley has a copy, which I am to see.[4]

[4] [The 'Musae Cateatonenses,' a burlesque narrative of a

supposed expedition of Mr. George Legge to Cateaton

Street in search of a Swiss chapel. Nothing can be more

droll. The only copy I have seen is still at Saltram.

This _jeu d'esprit_ (which fills a volume) was composed

by Canning and his friends one Easter recess they spent

at Ashbourne.]

March 9th, 1829 {p.186}

It was reported last night that there had been a compromise with

Lowther, who is to retain his seat and to vote for the Bill in

all its other stages. But he dined at Crockford's, and told

somebody there that he had tendered his resignation and had

received no answer. I do not understand this indecision; they

must deprive those who will not support them thoroughly.

'Thorough,' as Laud and Strafford used to say, must be their

word.

_Evening._--I asked Lord Bathurst to-day if Lowther, &c., were

out, and he said nothing had been done about it, that there was

plenty of time. Afterwards met Mrs. Arbuthnot in the Park, and

turned back with her. She was all against their being turned out,

from which I saw that they are to stay in. We met Gosh, and I

walked with them to the House of Commons. We renewed the subject,

and he said that he had been just as much as I could be for the

adoption of strong measures, but that the great object was to

carry the Bill, and if the Duke did not act with the greatest

prudence and caution it would still be lost. He hinted that the

difficulties with the King are still great, and that he is in a

state of excitement which alarms them lest he should go mad. It

is pretty clear that the Duke cannot venture to turn them out. In

the meantime the Duke of Cumberland continues at work. Lord

Bathurst told me that he went to Windsor on Saturday, that he had

assured the King that great alarm prevailed in London, that the

people were very violent, and that the Duke had been hissed by

the mob in going to the House of Lords, all of which of course he

believes. The Duke is very unwell. I think matters do not look at

all well, and I am alarmed.

[Page Head: CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]

March 11th, 1829 {p.186}

The Duke was much better yesterday, went to the House, and made a

very good and stirring speech in answer to Lord Winchelsea, who

disgusted all his own party by announcing himself an advocate for

reform in Parliament. It is now clear that Lowther, &c., are not

to quit their places unless something fresh occurs. The reason

supposed is that the King supports them, and that the Duke does

not venture to insist on their dismissal. The real reason is that

he has got an idea that the Whigs want to make him quarrel with

his old friends in order to render him more dependent upon them,

and he is therefore anxious (as he thinks he can) to carry

through the measure without quarrelling with anybody, so that he

will retain the support of the Tories and show the Whigs that he

can do without them, a notion which is unfounded, besides being

both unwise and illiberal. He has already given some persons to

understand that they _must_ support him on this question, and now

he is going to grant a dispensation to others, nor is there any

necessity for _quarrelling_ with anybody. Lowther himself

evidently felt that he could not hold his office and oppose the

measure, and consequently resigned. The Duke might accept his

resignation with a very friendly explanation on the subject;

eventually he would be certain to join Government again, for to

what other party could he betake himself? These great Tory

borough-mongering Lords have no taste for opposition. Arbuthnot

told my father that this was his feeling, and when I told Mrs.

Arbuthnot what a bad moral effect the Duke's lenity had, she

said, 'Oh, you hear that from the Opposition.' Last night in his

speech, when he said he had the cordial support of his Majesty,

he turned round with energy to the Duke of Cumberland. Several

Peers upon one pretext or another have withdrawn the support they

had intended to give to the Duke's Bill. Fourteen Irish bishops

are coming over in a body to petition the King against this Bill,

and most foolish they. The English bishops may by possibility be

sincere and disinterested in their opposition (not that I believe

they are), but nobody will ever believe that the Irish think of

anything but their scandalous revenues. The thing must go; the

only question is when and how. The Kent petition to the King is

to be presented, I believe, by Lords Winchelsea and Bexley; they

would not entrust it to Peel. Lord W. wanted to march down to

Windsor at the head of 25,000 men.

March 14th, 1829 {p.188}

Arbuthnot told the Duke what was said about not turning out the

refractory members, and he replied, 'I have undertaken this

business, and I am determined to go through with it. Nobody knows

the difficulties I have in dealing with my royal master, and

nobody knows him so well as I do. I will succeed, but I am as in

a field of battle, and I must fight it out my own way.' This

would be very well if there were not other motives mixed up with

this--jealousy of the Whigs and a desire to keep clear of them,

and quarrel with them again when this is over. Herries told Hyde

Villiers that _their_ policy was conservative, that of the Whigs

subversive, and that they never could act together. All false,

for nobody's policy is subversive who has much to lose, and the

Whigs comprise the great mass of property and a great body of the

aristocracy of the country. Nobody seems to doubt that the Bill

will pass. The day before yesterday the Duke of Newcastle went to

Windsor and had an audience. Lord Bathurst told me that they had

reason to believe his Grace had told the King his own sentiments

on the Catholic question, but that the King had made no answer.

But as nobody was present they could not depend on the truth of

this (which they had from his Majesty himself, of course), and he

begged me to find out what account the Duke gave of it.

March 15th, 1829 {p.188}

The Duke of Newcastle was with the King an hour and a half or two

hours. After he had presented his petitions he pulled out a

paper, which he read to the King. His Majesty made him no answer,

and desired him if he had any other communications to make to him

to send them through the Duke of Wellington. I dare say this is

true, not because he says so, but because there has been no

notice taken of the Duke's visit in any of the newspapers. They

now talk of thirteen bishops, and probably more, voting with

Government. I suppose the majority will be very large.

[Page Head: PERSONAL HABITS OF GEORGE IV.]

March 16th to 17th, 1829

I received a message from the King, to tell me that he was sorry

I had not dined with him the last time I was at Windsor, that he

had intended to ask me, but finding that all the Ministers dined

there except Ellenborough, he had let me go, that Ellenborough

might not be the only man not invited, and 'he would be damned if

Ellenborough ever should dine in his house.' I asked Lord

Bathurst afterwards, to whom I told this, why he hated Ellenborough,

and he said that something he had said during the Queen's trial

had given the King mortal offence, and he never forgave it. The

King complains that he is tired to death of all the people about

him. He is less violent about the Catholic question, tired of

that too, and does not wish to hear any more about it. He leads a

most extraordinary life--never gets up till six in the afternoon.

They come to him and open the window curtains at six or seven

o'clock in the morning; he breakfasts in bed, does whatever

business he can be brought to transact in bed too, he reads every

newspaper quite through, dozes three or four hours, gets up in

time for dinner, and goes to bed between ten and eleven. He

sleeps very ill, and rings his bell forty times in the night; if

he wants to know the hour, though a watch hangs close to him, he

will have his _valet de chambre_ down rather than turn his head

to look at it. The same thing if he wants a glass of water; he

won't stretch out his hand to get it. His valets are nearly

destroyed, and at last Lady Conyngham prevailed on him to agree

to an arrangement by which they wait on him on alternate days.

The service is still most severe, as on the days they are in

waiting their labours are incessant, and they cannot take off

their clothes at night, and hardly lie down. He is in good

health, but irritable, and has been horribly annoyed by other

matters besides the Catholic affair.

March 18th, 1829 {p.189}

I was at Windsor for the Council and the Recorder's report. We

waited above two hours; of course his Majesty did not get up till

we were all there. A small attendance in Council--the Duke,

Bathurst, Aberdeen, Melville, and I think no other Cabinet

Minister. I sent for Batchelor, the King's _valet de chambre_,

and had a pretty long conversation with him; he talked as if the

walls had ears, but was anxious to tell me everything. He

confirmed all I had before heard of the King's life, and said he

was nearly dead of it, that he was in high favour, and the King

had given him apartments in the Lodge and some presents. His

Majesty has been worried to death, and has not yet made up his

mind to the Catholic Bill (this man knows, I'll be bound). But

what he most dwelt on was Sir William Knighton. I said to him

that the King was afraid of the Duke. He replied he thought not;

he thought he was afraid of nobody but of Knighton, that he hated

him, but that his influence and authority were without any limit,

that he could do anything, and without him nothing could be done;

that after him Lady Conyngham was all-powerful, but in entire

subserviency to him; that she did not dare have anybody to dine

there without previously ascertaining that Knighton would not

disapprove of it; that he knew everything, and nobody dared say

or do a thing of any sort without his permission. There was a

sort of mysterious awe with which he spoke of Knighton, mixed

with dislike, which was curious. He is to call on me when he

comes to London, and will, I dare say, tell me more. Returned to

town at night, and heard of Sadler's speech[5] and read it. It is

certainly very clever, but better as reported than as it was

delivered. He sent the report to the 'Morning Journal' himself,

and added some things and omitted others, and thereby improved

it. He is sixty-seven years old, and it is his maiden speech;

certainly very remarkable and indicative of much talent. Lord

Harrowby told me he heard it, and was greatly struck by it.

[5] [Mr. Sadler, who had never sat in Parliament before,

was returned by the Duke of Newcastle at this time for

the express purpose of opposing the Catholic Relief

Bill, which he did with considerable ability.]

[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE CATHOLIC BILL.]

March 19th, 1829 {p.190}

Last night the debate ended, with a very excellent speech from

Robert Grant,[6] and a speech from Lord Palmerston which

astonished everybody. The Attorney-General was violent and

brutal, and Peel's reply very good; he was bursting with passion,

but restrained himself. I met Tierney, and told him that there

was great disappointment that he had not answered Sadler. He said

he could not speak for coughing, that Sadler's speech was clever,

but over-rated, nothing like so good as they talked of. Robert

Grant's was very good indeed, the best for matter; Palmerston's

the most brilliant, 'an imitation of Canning, and not a bad one.'

Though the Opposition gained eight in this division, they are

disappointed and disheartened, and will make but little fight on

the other stages (as it is thought). Nine bishops are to vote.

The meeting at Lambeth took place the day before yesterday, but

it came to nothing. They separated agreeing to meet again, and in

the meantime that each should take his own line. Tierney talked

of the Duke's management of this business with great admiration,

as did Lord Durham last night in the same strain; but after all

what was it but the resolution of secresy (which I think was a

most wise and judicious one)? for he did nothing but keep the

secret. However, the thing has been well imagined and well

executed. Tierney thinks Peel will resign when it is all over,

and at his father's death will be made a Peer. I should not

wonder; he must be worn to death with the torrents of abuse and

invective with which his old friends assail him on every

occasion. I presume that if he could have anticipated their

conduct he would not have been so civil to them in the beginning,

and would have taken another turn altogether; it would have been

better for him. Lady Worcester told me to-day what adds to many

other proofs that the Duke is a very _hard_ man; he takes no

notice of any of his family; he never sees his mother, has only

visited her two or three times in the last few years; and has not

now been to see Lady Anne, though she has been in such affliction

for the death of her only son, and he passes her door every time

he goes to Strathfieldsaye. He is well with Lady Maryborough,

though they quarrelled after Lord M. was driven from the Cabinet;

Lord Wellesley is seriously affronted with him at the little

consideration the Duke shows for him, and for having shown him no

confidence in all this business, especially as the Catholic

question was the only political difference that existed between

them. He is a very extraordinary man certainly, and with many

contradictions in his character; in him, however, they are so

much more apparent than in any other man, for he is always before

the world--all his actions, his motives, and even his thoughts.

[6] [Robert Grant, Esq., M.P., brother of Mr. Charles

Grant. He was afterwards appointed Governor of Bombay.]

[Page Head: DUEL OF THE DUKE AND LORD WINCHELSEA.]

March 21st, 1829, at night {p.192}

This morning the Duke fought a duel with Lord Winchelsea. Nothing

could equal the astonishment caused by this event. Everybody of

course sees the matter in a different light; all blame Lord W.,

but they are divided as to whether the Duke ought to have fought

or not. Lord W.'s letter appeared last Monday, and certainly from

that time to this it never entered into anybody's head that the

Duke ought to or would take it up, though the expressions in it

were very impertinent. But Lord Winchelsea is such a maniac, and

has so lost his head (besides the ludicrous incident of the

handkerchief[7]), that everybody imagined the Duke would treat

what he said with silent contempt. He thought otherwise, however,

and without saying a word to any of his colleagues or to anybody

but Hardinge, his second, he wrote and demanded an apology. After

many letters and messages between the parties (Lord Falmouth

being Lord Winchelsea's second) Lord Winchelsea declined making

any apology, and they met. The letters on the Duke's part are

very creditable, so free from arrogance or an assuming tone;

those on Lord Winchelsea's not so, for one of them is a senseless

repetition of the offence, in which he says that if the Duke will

deny that his allegations are true he will apologise. They met at

Wimbledon at eight o'clock. There were many people about, who saw

what passed. They stood at a distance of fifteen paces. Before

they began Hardinge went up to Lords Winchelsea and Falmouth, and

said he must protest against the proceeding, and declare that

their conduct in refusing an apology when Lord Winchelsea was so

much in the wrong filled him with disgust. The Duke fired and

missed, and then Winchelsea fired in the air. He immediately

pulled out of his pocket the paper which has since appeared, but

in which the word 'apology' was omitted. The Duke read it and

said it would not do. Lord Falmouth said he was not come there to

quibble about words, and that he was ready to make the apology in

whatever terms would be satisfactory, and the word 'apology' was

inserted on the ground. The Duke then touched his hat, said 'Good

morning, my Lords,' mounted his horse, and rode off. Hume was

there, without knowing on whose behalf till he got to the ground.

Hardinge asked him to attend, and told him where he would find a

chaise, into which he got. He found there pistols, which told him

the errand he was on, but he had still no notion the Duke was

concerned; when he saw him he was ready to drop. The Duke went to

Mrs. Arbuthnot's as soon as he got back, and at eleven o'clock

she wrote a note to Lord Bathurst, telling him of it, which he

received at the Council board and put into my hands. So little

idea had he of Lord Winchelsea's letter leading to anything

serious that when on Wednesday, at the Council at Windsor, I

asked him if he had read it, he said, laughing, 'Yes, and it is a

very clever letter, much the wisest thing he ever did; _he has

got back his money_. I wish I could find some such pretext to get

back mine.' At twelve o'clock the Duke went to Windsor to tell

the King what had happened. Winchelsea is abused for not having

made an apology when it was first required; but I think, having

committed the folly of writing so outrageous a letter, he did the

only thing a man of honour could do in going out and receiving a

shot and then making an apology, which he was all this time

prepared to do, for he had it ready written in his pocket. I

think the Duke ought not to have challenged him; it was very

juvenile, and he stands in far too high a position, and his life

is so much _publica cura_ that he should have treated him and his

letter with the contempt they merited; it was a great error in

judgment, but certainly a venial one, for it is impossible not to

admire the high spirit which disdained to shelter itself behind

the immunities of his great character and station, and the

simplicity, and almost humility, which made him at once descend

to the level of Lord Winchelsea, when he might, without

subjecting himself to any imputation derogatory to his honour,

have assumed a tone of lofty superiority and treated him as

unworthy of his notice. Still it was beneath his dignity; it

lowered him, and was more or less ridiculous. Lord Jersey met him

coming from Windsor, and spoke to him. He said, 'I could not do

otherwise, could I?'

[7] [The incident of the handkerchief is related below, p.

198 (March 29th, 1829).]

I met the Bishop of Oxford in the Park this morning; he said nine

bishops, and probably ten, would vote for the Bill. He said he

was not at the meeting at Lambeth, but the Archbishop sent for

him, and despatched him to the Duke with an account of their

proceedings. The Archbishop summoned the bishops to consult upon

the course they should pursue, and see if there was any chance of

their acting with unanimity. Finding this was not possible, they

resolved that each should take his own line; and a proposal to

address the King, which was urged by one or two of the most

violent (he did not name them), was overruled. The anti-Catholic

papers and men lavish the most extravagant encomiums on

Wetherell's speech, and call it 'the finest oration ever

delivered in the House of Commons,' 'the best since the second

Philippic.' He was drunk, they say. The Speaker said 'the only

lucid interval he had was that between his waistcoat and his

breeches.' When he speaks he unbuttons his braces, and in his

vehement action his breeches fall down and his waistcoat runs up,

so that there is a great interregnum. He is half mad, eccentric,

ingenious, with great and varied information and a coarse, vulgar

mind, delighting in ribaldry and abuse, besides being an

enthusiast. The first time he distinguished himself was in

Watson's trial, when he and Copley were his counsel, and both

made very able speeches. He was then a trading lawyer and

politician, till the Queen came over, when he made a very

powerful speech in the House of Commons, full of research, in

favour of inserting her name in the Liturgy. He was then engaged

by Chancellor Eldon for the Court, soon after made Solicitor-General,

much abused for ratting, became Attorney-General, and resigned

when Canning became Minister. He was restored when the Duke was

made Prime Minister, and now he will have to retire again.

[Page Head: THE KING ON THE DUEL.]

March 26th, 1829 {p.195}

Everything is getting on very quietly in the House of Commons,

and the Opposition are beginning to squabble among themselves,

some wishing to create delay, and others not choosing to join in

these tricks, when they know it is useless. The Duke came here

the night before last, but I was not at home. He talked over the

whole matter with his usual simplicity. The King, it seems, was

highly pleased with the Winchelsea affair, and he said, 'I did

not see the letter (which is probably a lie); if I had, I

certainly should have thought it my duty to call your attention

to it.' Somebody added that 'he would be wanting to fight a duel

himself.' Sefton said, 'he will be sure to think he has fought

one.' Hume gave the two Lords a lecture on the ground after the

duel, and said he did not think there was a man in England who

would have lifted his hand against the Duke. Very uncalled for,

but the Duke's friends have less humility than he has, for Lord

Winchelsea did not lift his hand against him. It is curious that

the man who threw the bottle at Lord Wellesley in Dublin (and who

is a Protestant fanatic) has been lurking constantly about the

House of Lords, so much so that it was thought right to apprise

Peel of it, and the police have been desired in consequence to

keep a strict watch over him, and to take care that he does no

mischief. The Duke after the duel sent Lord Melville to the Duke

of Montrose with a message that his son-in-law had behaved very

much like a gentleman. The women, particularly of course Lady

Jersey, have been very ridiculous, affecting nervousness and fine

feeling, though they never heard of the business till some hours

after it was over. Mrs. Arbuthnot was not so foolish but made

very light of it all, which was in better sense and better taste.

M---- told me two days ago that, although he is more quiet, the

King is not at all reconciled to the Catholic question. His

Majesty was very much annoyed at his speech the other day, having

always hoped that he was at heart too indifferent about it to

take a decided line or express publicly a strong opinion. It is

supposed that either Sugden or Alderson will be Solicitor-General.

O'Connell has done himself great credit by his moderation in the

Committee. Grattan wanted to move an amendment omitting the words

by which O'Connell is excluded from taking his seat for Clare,

when Rice and Duncannon begged him to withdraw it, and said they

were charged with the expression of O'Connell's wish that his

individual case should not be thought of, as he would not have it

be any impediment to the success of the measure. This, of course,

greatly annoys those who have inveighed against him, and who have

always contended that he only wished for confusion, and would be

very sorry to see the question settled.

The other day Jack Lawless[8] called on Arbuthnot to ask him some

question about the Deccan prize money, in which a brother of his

has an interest. He entered upon politics, was very obsequious in

his manner, extravagant in praise of the Duke, quite shocked that

he should have fought a duel, and said, 'Sir, we are twelve of us

here, and not one but what would fight for him any day in the

week.' He said that some years ago, when he heard the Duke speak,

he was distressed at his hesitation, but that now he spoke better

than anyone; that in the Lords he heard Eldon, and Plunket, and

Grey, and then up got the Duke and answered everybody, and spoke

better than they all. Arbuthnot says he was bowing and scraping,

and all humility and politeness, with none of the undergrowl of

the Association.

[8] [A prominent member of the Catholic Association in

Dublin.]

[Page Head: LORD ELDON'S INTERVIEW WITH THE KING.]

March 26th, 1829, at night {p.196}

Just met M----, who had returned that moment from Windsor, where

he had left the King in such an ill humour that he would not stay

and dine there. The Duke of Cumberland never goes there without

unsettling his mind, and yesterday evening Lord Mansfield had

been to the Castle and had an audience. Lord Eldon prevails on

all these Peers to exercise their right and demand audiences.

Lord Mansfield had no petition to present, and only went to

remonstrate about the Catholic question and tell the King that

all the Protestants looked to him to save them from the impending

danger. The King declares he only listens to what they say, and

replies that he must leave everything to his Ministers; but it is

impossible for him to listen (and not talk himself) for an hour

and a quarter together. He is very angry at the Bishop of

Winchester's speech, and at the declaration in favour of the Bill

by both of the brothers.[9] He accused M---- of having influenced

the Bishop, which he denied, and told him that he would not have

been biassed by anybody. The King still is in hopes that the Bill

will not pass, and said that the Ministers had only a majority of

five, and with that they would not carry it through. M----

replied that they had above fifty, and after such a majority as

there had been in the Commons it must pass. All this he received

as sulkily as possible, and it is clear that if he dared, and if

he could, he would still defeat the measure. His dislike to it is

the opposition of a spoiled child, founded on considerations

purely personal and selfish and without any reason whatever.

[9] [The two Sumners. Dr. John Bird Sumner (afterwards

Archbishop of Canterbury) had been raised to the see of

Chester in 1828. They owed their advancement to the

especial favour of George IV. The bishop adverted to in

the next sentence was the Bishop of Winchester.]

March 29th, 1829, at night {p.197}

Dined at Lady Sandwich's, and met Madame de Lieven, who is grown

very gracious, craving for news, and probably very malignant.

Lieven told me (which she did not) that Lord Eldon was with the

King yesterday for four hours. She confirmed it after dinner, and

said that Halford had told her, but added that he had done no

harm.[10] Lieven also told me that Stratford Canning is coming

home, and Robert Gordon going to Constantinople. He is a dull,

heavy man, and not able, I should think, to cope with the Turkish

Ministers, if they are (as the Duke says) the ablest diplomatists

in Europe. I don't know why Stratford Canning is coming home,

whether _nolens_ or _volens_.

[10] [This was the celebrated interview related in Lord

Eldon's 'Memoirs' vol. iii., when, however, the King

gave Lord E. a very erroneous account of the

transaction, subsequently corrected by Sir Robert Peel

in his 'Memoirs.']

I have, I see, alluded to Lord Winchelsea's handkerchief

story,[11] but have not mentioned the circumstances, which I may

as well do. Lord Holland came home one night from the House of

Lords, and as soon as he had occasion to blow his nose pulled his

handkerchief out of his pocket; upon which my Lady exclaimed (she

hates perfumes), 'Good God, Lord H., where did you get that

handkerchief? Send it away directly.' He said he did not know,

when it was inspected, and the letter _W_ found on it. Lord H.

said, 'I was sitting near Lord Winchelsea, and it must be his,

which I took up by mistake and have brought home.' Accordingly

the next day he sent it to Lord Winchelsea with his compliments.

Lord Winchelsea receiving the handkerchief and the message, and

finding it marked _W_, fancied it was the Duke's, and that it was

sent to him by way of affronting him; on which he went to the

Duke of Newcastle and imparted to him the circumstances, and

desired him to wait on Lord Holland for an explanation. This his

Grace did, when the matter was cleared up and the handkerchief

was found to be the property of Lord Wellesley. The next day Lord

Winchelsea came up laughing to Lord Holland in the House of

Lords, and said he had many apologies to make for what had

passed, but that he really was in such a state of excitement he

did not know what he said and did.[12]

[11] [_Supra_, p. 192 (March 21st, 1829).]

[12] [Lord Winchelsea was in the habit of flourishing a

white pocket handkerchief while he was speaking in the

House of Lords. This peculiarity; associated with his

sonorous tones, his excited action, and his extravagant

opinions, gave point to the incident.]

[Page Head: DEBATE ON THE CATHOLIC BILL.]

April 4th, 1829 {p.198}

On the third reading of the Catholic Bill in the House of Commons

Sadler failed, and Palmerston made a speech like one of

Canning's. The Bill has been two nights in the House of Lords.

They go on with it this morning, and will divide this evening.

The Chancellor made a very fine speech last night, and the Bishop

of Oxford spoke very well the night before, but the debate has

been dull on the whole; the subject is exhausted. The House of

Lords was very full, particularly of women; every fool in London

thinks it necessary to be there. It is only since last year that

the steps of the throne have been crowded with ladies; formerly

one or two got in, who skulked behind the throne, or were hid in

Tyrwhitt's box, but now they fill the whole space, and put

themselves in front with their large bonnets, without either fear

or shame.

April 5th, 1829 {p.199}

The question was put at a little before twelve last night, and

carried by 105--217 to 112 (a greater majority than the most

sanguine expected)--after a splendid speech from Lord Grey and a

very good one from Lord Plunket. Old Eldon was completely beat,

and could make no fight at all; his speech was wretched, they

say, for I did not hear it. This tremendous defeat will probably

put an end to anything like serious opposition; they will hardly

rally again.

I dined at Chesterfield House, but nobody came to dinner.

Chesterfield and his party were all at the House of Lords. I

found myself almost alone with Vesey Fitzgerald, with whom I had

much talk after dinner. He said that it would be a long time

before all the circumstances and all the difficulties relating to

their proceedings were known, but when they were it would be seen

how great had been the latter, how curious the former; that the

day the Chancellor, the Duke, and Peel were with the King they

actually were out (all of which I knew), and that he believes if

the other party could have made a Government with a chance of

standing, out they would have gone; but that it was put to them

(this I did not know), and they acknowledged they could not. They

held consultations on the subject, and the man they principally

relied on was the Duke of Richmond; they meant he should be

either First Lord of the Treasury or Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

Lord Winchelsea said to Ellenborough, 'Why, he speaks better than

the Duke of Wellington any day.' He happens to have his wits,

such as they are, about him, and has been quick and neat in

one or two little speeches, though he spoke too often, and

particularly in his attack on the Bishop of Oxford the other

night. Last year, on the Wool question, he did very well, but all

the details were got up for him by George Bentinck,[13] who took

the trouble. Besides, his fortune consists in great measure of

wool, he lives in the country, is well versed in rural affairs

and the business of the quarter sessions, has a certain calibre

of understanding, is prejudiced, narrow-minded, illiterate, and

ignorant, good-looking, good-humoured, and unaffected, tedious,

prolix, unassuming, and a duke. There would not have been so much

to say about him if they had not excited an idea in the minds of

some people of making him Prime Minister and successor to the

Duke of Wellington.

[13] [It deserves remark that Lord George Bentinck was thus

early employing his singular talents in mastering

details, although he took no conspicuous part in

politics until the proposal for the repeal of the Corn

Law in 1845.]

[Page Head: THE BILL IN JEOPARDY.]

Vesey told me that Dawson's speech at Derry very nearly

overturned the whole design. The King heard of it the day of a

Council at Windsor (which I well remember). The Chancellor was

with him for a long time, but it was almost impossible to

persuade the King that Dawson knew nothing of the intention of

the Government, and that his speech was not made in concert with

Peel and the Duke. This it was which caused them such excessive

annoyance, because it raised difficulties which well-nigh

prevented the accomplishment of the design. It must be owned that

the King might well believe this, and although it is very certain

that Dawson knew nothing, and that his making such a speech ought

to have been a proof that he was in ignorance, it will always be

believed that he was aware of the intended measure, and that his

speech was made with the Duke's concurrence. It is curious enough

that his opinion had been long changed, and that he had intended

to pronounce his recantation when Brownlow did, but as Brownlow

got the start of him he would not. For two years after this he

persevered in the old course, and when Canning came in, and the

Catholic question was the great field on which he was to be

fought, Dawson reverted vigorously to his old opinions, and spoke

vehemently against emancipation. Such is party!

The circumstances that Vesey talked of are in fact pretty well

known or guessed at, nor has there ever been any secret as to the

main fact of the King's opposition and dislike to the measure. He

told me that after Eldon's visit of four hours the Duke

remonstrated, and told the King what great umbrage it gave his

Ministers to see and hear of these long and numerous interviews

with their opponents. The King declared that he said nothing and

that nothing passed calculated to annoy them, which they none of

them believed, but of course could make no reply to.

April 8th, 1829 {p.200}

I have mentioned above (March 4th[14]), p. 180, the Chancellor,

the Duke, and Peel going to the King, and the alarm that

prevailed here. That day the Catholic question was in great

jeopardy. They went to tell the King that unless he would give

them his real, efficient support, and not throw his indirect

influence into the opposite scale, they would resign. He refused

to give them that support; they placed their resignations in his

hands and came away. The King then sent to Eldon, and asked him

if he would undertake to form a Government. He deliberated (then

it was that it was question of the Duke of Richmond being First

Lord or Lord-Lieutenant), but eventually said he could not

undertake it. On his refusal the King yielded, and the Bill went

on; but if Eldon had accepted, the Duke and his colleagues would

have been out, and God knows what would have happened. It was, of

course, of all these matters that the King talked to Eldon in the

long interview they had the other day. He is very sulky at the

great majority in the House of Lords, as I knew he would be.

[14] [It was on the 3rd of March that this interview took

place, as related by Sir R. Peel himself in his

'Memoir' (vol. i. p. 343). The King asked his Ministers

to explain the details of the measure they proposed to

bring in. They informed his Majesty that it would be

necessary to modify in the case of the Roman Catholics

that part of the oath of supremacy which relates to the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope.

To this the King said he could not possibly consent.

Upon this Mr. Peel and his colleagues informed his

Majesty that they must resign. His Majesty accepted the

resignations, and the Ministers returned to London

(after an audience of five hours) under the full

persuasion that the Government was dissolved. In the

interval some attempt was made to form a Protestant

Cabinet; but on the evening of the following day, the

4th of March, the King wrote a letter to the Duke of

Wellington, informing him that his Majesty anticipated

so much difficulty in the attempt to form another

Administration that he could not dispense with his

Ministers' services, and that they were at liberty to

proceed with the measures of which notice had been

given in Parliament.]

Lady Jersey is in a fury with Lord Anglesey, and goes about

saying he insulted her in the House of Lords the other night. She

was sitting on one of the steps of the throne, and the Duchess of

Richmond on the step above. After Lord Anglesey had spoken he

came to talk to the Duchess, who said, 'How well you did speak;'

on which he said, 'Hush! you must take care what you say, for

here is Lady Jersey, and she reports for the newspapers;' on

which Lady Jersey said very angrily, 'Lady Jersey is here for her

own amusement; what do you mean by reporting for newspapers?' to

which he replied with a profound bow, 'I beg your Ladyship's

pardon; I did not mean to offend you, and if I did I beg to make

the most ample apology.' This is his version; hers, of course, is

different. He says that he meant the whole thing as a joke. It

was a very bad joke if it was one, and as he knows how she abuses

him, one may suspect that there was something more than joking in

it.

The other night Lord Grey had called Lord Falmouth to order, and

after the debate Falmouth came up to him with a menacing air and

said, 'My Lord Grey, I wish to inform you that if upon any future

occasion you transgress in the slightest degree the orders of the

House, I shall most certainly call you to order.' Lord Grey, who

expected from his air something more hostile, merely said, 'My

Lord, your Lordship will do perfectly right, and whenever I am

out of order I hope you will.' Last night old Eldon got a

dressing again from the Chancellor.

[Page Head: O'CONNELL AT DINNER.]

April 9th, 1829 {p.202}

Met O'Connell at dinner yesterday at William Ponsonby's. The only

Irish (agitators) were he and O'Gorman Mahon; ----, he said, was

too great a blackguard, and he would not invite him. O'Connell

arrived from Ireland that day; there is nothing remarkable in his

manner, appearance, or conversation, but he seems lively, well

bred, and at his ease. I asked him after dinner 'whether

Catholics had not taken the oath of supremacy till it was coupled

with the declaration;' he said, 'in many instances in the reigns

of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, because at that time it was

considered to apply to the civil supremacy of the Pope only, and

that the Government admitted of that interpretation of it, but

that no Catholic could take it now, because that construction is

never given to the oath.' Duncannon told me that O'Connell has no

wish to be in Parliament, that he makes so much money by his

profession that it is a great loss to him to attend Parliament at

all. What they want is a compromise with Vesey Fitzgerald, by

which he may be admitted to take his seat in this Parliament on

an understanding that he will not oppose Vesey in the next; not

that I see how that is to be done, except by an Act of Parliament

(which would never pass) in his favour. Besides, the Duke detests

him, and Vesey likewise. They cannot forgive him for all he has

done and all he has made them do. O'Gorman, the secretary of the

Catholic Association, appears a heavy, civil, vulgar man. I sat

next to Stanley, who told me a story which amused me. Macintosh,

in the course of the recent debates, went one day to the House of

Commons at eleven in the morning to take a place. They were all

taken on the benches below the gangway, and on asking the

doorkeeper how they happened to be all taken so early, he said,

'Oh, sir, there is no chance of getting a place, for Colonel

Sibthorpe sleeps at a tavern close by, and comes here every

morning by eight o'clock and takes places for all the saints.'

April 13th, 1829 {p.203}

On Friday last the Catholic Bill was read a third time, after a

very dull debate. Lord Eldon attempted to rally, and made a long

and wretched speech which lasted two hours. Nobody spoke well.

The Duke in his reply dropped all the terms of courtesy and

friendship he had hitherto used in speaking of old Eldon, and

broke off with him entirely. He is disgusted at his opposition

out of doors, and at his having been the constant adviser of the

Duke of Cumberland and all the foolish Lords who have been

pestering the King at Windsor; and he is acquainted with all his

tricks and underhand proceedings, probably with more of them than

we know of. He thanked the Opposition for their support--thanks

which they well merit from him--but of course nobody is

satisfied. He was before accused of ingratitude in never taking

notice of their conduct, and even it is said that he gave them to

understand he had no more need of their services, and wished to

make them his bow. I don't believe he meant any such thing; he

intended to thank them simply, though it is probably true that he

does not wish to continue in alliance with them, and is anxious

to see the Tories put themselves under his orders again. On

Saturday he sent the commission down to Windsor for the King's

signature, with other papers as a matter of course; he would not

go himself, that there might be no fresh discussion between them.

I went on Friday morning to the Old Bailey to hear the trials,

particularly that of the women for the murder of the apprentices;

the mother was found guilty, and will be hanged to-day--has been

by this time.[15] The case exhibited a shocking scene of

wretchedness and poverty, such as ought not to exist in any

community, especially in one which pretends to be so flourishing

and happy as this is. It is, I suppose, one case of many which

may be found in this town, graduating through various stages of

misery and vice. These wretched beings were described to be in

the lowest state of moral and physical degradation, with scarcely

rags to cover them, food barely sufficient to keep them alive,

and working eighteen or nineteen hours a day, without being

permitted any relaxation, or even the privilege of going to

church on Sunday. I never heard more disgusting details than this

trial elicited, or a case which calls more loudly for an

investigation into the law and the system under which such

proceedings are possible. Poverty, and vice, and misery must

always be found in a community like ours, but such frightful

contrasts between the excess of luxury and splendour and these

scenes of starvation and brutality ought not to be possible; but

I am afraid there is more vice, more misery and penury in this

country than in any other, and at the same time greater wealth.

The contrasts are too striking, and such an unnatural, artificial,

and unjust state of things neither can nor ought to be permanent.

I am convinced that before many years elapse these things will

produce some great convulsion.

[15] [Two wretched women named Hibner were tried, and one of

them convicted for the murder of a parish apprentice

named Francis Colepitts by savage ill-treatment. The

elder prisoner was found guilty and executed on the

13th of April. No such concourse of people had

assembled to witness an execution since that of

Fauntleroy. The details of the crime were horrible, and

had excited great sympathy for the victim amongst all

classes.--_Ann. Regist. for 1829, Chronicle_, p. 71.]

[Page Head: THEATRICAL FUND DINNER.]

After the Old Bailey I went and dined at the Covent Garden

Theatrical Fund dinner. The Duke of Clarence could not come, so

they put Lord Blessington in the chair, who made an ass of

himself. Among other toasts he was to give 'The memory of the

Duke of York,' who was the founder of the institution. He

prefaced this with a speech, but gave 'The health,' &c., on which

Fawcett, who sat opposite, called out in an agony, 'The memory,

my Lord!' He corrected himself, but in a minute after said again

'The health.' 'The memory, my Lord!' again roared Fawcett. It was

supremely ridiculous. Francis Leveson sat on his right,

Codrington on his left, and Lawless the agitator just opposite;

he is a pale, thin, common-looking little man, and has not at all

the air of a patriot orator and agitator.

May 14th, 1829 {p.205}

I have been at Newmarket for three weeks, and have had no time to

write, nor has anything particular occurred. The King came to

town, and had a levee and drawing-room, the former of which was

very numerously, the other shabbily attended. At the levee he was

remarkably civil to all the Peers, particularly the Duke of

Richmond, who had distinguished themselves in opposition to

Government in the late debates, and he turned his back on the

bishops who had voted for the Bill. O'Connell and Shiel were both

at the levee; the former had been presented in Ireland, so had

not to be presented again, but the King took no notice of him,

and when he went by said to somebody near him, 'Damn the fellow!

what does he come here for?'--dignified.

There was an odd circumstance the day of the drawing-room. The

Duke of Cumberland, as Gold Stick, gave orders at the Horse

Guards that no carriages should be admitted into the Park, and

Peel and the Duke of Wellington, when they presented themselves

on their way to Court, were refused admission. The officer on

guard came to the Duke's carriage and said that such were his

orders, but that he was sure they were not meant to extend to his

Grace, and if he would authorise him he would order the gates to

be opened. The Duke said 'By no means,' and then desired his

carriage to go round the other way. Many people thought that this

was a piece of impertinence of the Duke of Cumberland's, but the

Duke says that the whole thing was a mistake. Be this as it may,

the Duke of Cumberland and the Duke of Wellington do not speak,

and whenever they meet, which often happens in society, the

former moves off.

Yesterday morning Batchelor called on me, and sat with me for an

hour, telling me all sorts of details concerning the interior of

Windsor and St. James's. The King is well in health, except that

since last September he has been afflicted with a complaint in

his bladder, which both annoys and alarms him very much. There is

no appearance of stone or gravel, but violent irritation, which

is only subdued by laudanum, and always returns when the effect

of the opiate is gone off. The laudanum, too, disagrees much with

his general health. He is attended by Sir Henry Holland, Brodie,

and O'Reilly. Sir A. Cooper, who did attend him, is not now

consulted, in consequence (Batchelor thinks) of some petty

intrigue in some quarter. This O'Reilly, who has gradually

insinuated himself into the King's confidence, and by constantly

attending him at Windsor, and bringing him all the gossip and

tittle-tattle of the neighbourhood (being on the alert to pick up

and retail all he can for the King's amusement), has made himself

necessary, and is not now to be shaken off, to the great

annoyance of Knighton, who cannot bear him, as well as of all the

other people about the King, who hate him for his meddling,

mischievous character, The King's _valets de chambre_ sit up

alternately, and as he sleeps very ill he rings his bell every

half-hour. He talks of everybody and everything before his valets

with great freedom, except of politics, on which he never utters

a word in their presence, and he always sends them away when he

sees anybody or speaks on business of any kind. Batchelor thinks

that this new disorder is a symptom of approaching decay, and

that the King thinks so himself.

[Page Head: LADY CONYNGHAM.]

In the meantime the influence of Knighton and that of Lady

Conyngham continue as great as ever; nothing can be done but by

their permission, and they understand one another and play into

each other's hands. Knighton opposes every kind of expense,

except that which is lavished on her. The wealth she has

accumulated by savings and presents must be enormous. The King

continues to heap all kinds of presents upon her, and she lives

at his expense; they do not possess a servant; even Lord

Conyngham's _valet de chambre_ is not properly their servant.

They all have situations in the King's household, from which they

receive their pay, while they continue in the service of the

Conynghams. They dine every day while in London at St. James's,

and when they give a dinner it is cooked at St. James's and

brought up to Hamilton Place in hackney coaches and in machines

made expressly for the purpose; there is merely a fire lit in

their kitchen for such things as must be heated on the spot. At

Windsor the King sees very little of her except of an evening; he

lies in bed half the day or more, sometimes goes out, and

sometimes goes to her room for an hour or so in the afternoon,

and that is all he sees of her. A more despicable scene cannot be

exhibited than that which the interior of our Court presents--

every base, low, and unmanly propensity, with selfishness,

avarice, and a life of petty intrigue and mystery.

May 16th, 1829 {p.207}

O'Connell attempted to take his seat last night, but the business

was put off till Monday. His case is exceedingly well got up, but

too long. There are many opinions as to his right; many people

think he has established it (though he had failed to do so), that

a Bill ought to be brought in to enable him to take the new

oaths. It was supposed Government would take no part, but Peel's

speech and the language of some of the Ministers are rather

unfavourable to him. Lord Grey, when he read the case, thought

his argument on the tenth clause of the Bill conclusive, but when

he examined the Bill he thought differently, and that the context

gives a different signification to the words on which O'Connell

relies. Tierney thinks otherwise, and this they debated Bill in

hand in Lady Jersey's room yesterday morning. O'Connell was in a

great fright when he went up to the table. He got, through the

necessary forms in the Steward's office by means of the

Commissioners whom Duncannon provided, and who were, I believe,

Burdett and Ebrington. He ought to be allowed to take his seat,

but probably he will not; it is a very hard case.[16] The Duke of

Orleans is come, and his son, the Duke of Chartres; the latter

was at the opera to-night in Prince Leopold's box.

[16] [O'Connell was excluded from taking his seat as member

for Clare, for which he had been elected before the

passing of the Relief Act, because it was held that he

was bound to take the oath which was required by law at

the time of his election, and not the oath imposed on

Roman Catholics by the recent statutes. He presented

himself to be sworn at the table of the House of

Commons on the 15th of May, and there refused to take

the former oath, which was tendered to him by the

Clerk. The House divided 100 to 116 against his

admission without taking the oath of supremacy on the

18th; Mr. O'Connell having previously been heard at the

bar in person in support of his claim.]

May 29th, 1829 {p.208}

O'Connell is said to have made a very good speech at the bar of

the House, and produced rather a favourable impression. He has

done himself this good, that whereas it was pretty generally

thought that he was likely to fail in the House of Commons as a

speaker, he has now altered that impression. There is but one

opinion as to the wretched feeling of excluding him, but the

saddle is put upon the right horse, and though the Government are

now obliged to enforce the provisions of their own Bill,

everybody knows that the exclusion was the work of the King.

O'Connell goes back to Clare (as he says) sure of his election;

there will be a great uproar, but at present nobody expects any

opposition, and all deprecate a contest.

[Page Head: PRINCESS VICTORIA AT A CHILD'S BALL.]

Yesterday the King gave a dinner to the Dukes of Orleans and

Chartres, and in the evening there was a child's ball. It was

pretty enough, and I saw for the first time the Queen of

Portugal[17] and our little Victoria. The Queen was finely dressed,

with a ribband and order over her shoulder, and she sat by the

King. She is good-looking and has a sensible Austrian countenance.

In dancing she fell down and hurt her face, was frightened and

bruised, and went away. The King was very kind to her. Our little

Princess is a short, plain-looking child, and not near so

good-looking as the Portuguese. However, if nature has not done

so much, fortune is likely to do a great deal more for her. The

King looked very well, and stayed at the ball till two. There

were very few people, and neither Arbuthnot nor Mrs. A. were

asked. I suspect this is owing to what passed in the House about

opening the Birdcage Walk. It puts the King in a fury to have

any such thing mentioned, not having the slightest wish to

accommodate the public, though very desirous of getting money out

of their pockets.

[17] [Donna Maria II. da Gloria, Queen of Portugal, on the

abdication of her father, Don Pedro, succeeded to the

throne on the 2nd of May, 1826. She was born on the 4th

of April, 1819, and was consequently but a few weeks

older than the Princess Victoria.]

The day before yesterday there was a review for the Duke of

Orleans, and the Marquis of Anglesey, who was there at the head

of his regiment, contrived to get a tumble, but was not hurt.

Last night at the ball the King said to Lord Anglesey, 'Why,

Paget, what's this I hear? they say you rolled off your horse at

the review yesterday.' The Duke as he left the ground was

immensely cheered, and the people thronged about his horse and

would shake hands with him. When Lord Hill went to the King the

day before to give him an account of the intended review and the

dispositions that had been made, he said, 'Hill, if I can throw

my leg over your Shropshire horse, don't be surprised if you see

me amongst you.'

The new law appointments have just been announced, and have

created some surprise.[18]

[18] [The Attorney-General, Sir Charles Wetherell, had

resigned in consequence of his violent opposition to

the Catholic Relief Bill, and was succeeded by Sir

James Scarlett (afterwards Lord Abinger). The

Solicitor-General, Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal, was

raised on the 9th of June to the Chief Justiceship of

the Common Pleas; and was succeeded in the

Solicitorship by Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden

(afterwards Lord St. Leonards). The vacancy in the

Common Pleas was caused by the resignation of Sir

William Draper Best, who was created Lord Wynford for

the purpose of assisting the Chancellor with the

judicial business of the House of Lords.]

June 11th, 1829 {p.210}

I have been at Epsom for a week; the Duke of Grafton, Lords

Wilton, Jersey, and Worcester, Russell, Anson, Irby, and myself

took Down Hall for the races and lived very well. Nothing

particular has occurred. Lord and Lady Ellenborough are

separated, and he is supposed to have behaved very handsomely to

her. They say he does not now know the whole story of her

intrigue with Felix Schwarzenberg; that hero is gone to the

Russian army. All the new appointments were declared when I was

out of town, and they excited some surprise and more disapprobation.

They have made Best a Peer, who is poor and has a family, by

which another poor peerage will be added to the list; and he

is totally unfit for the situation he is to fill--that of

Deputy-Speaker of the House of Lords, and to assist the

Chancellor in deciding Scotch causes, of which he knows nothing

whatever; and as the Chancellor knows nothing either, the Scotch

law is likely to be strangely administered in that great court of

appeal. They would have done better to have made Alexander[19] a

Peer, who is very old, understands Equity Law, and has no

children; but he knows very little of Common Law (which Best is

well versed in), and so they keep him on the bench and put Best

on the Woolsack. Lord Rosslyn is Privy Seal,[20] and Scarlett

Attorney-General, which looks like a leaning towards the Whigs;

but then Trench and Lord Edward Somerset are put into the

Ordnance; George Bankes goes back to the India Board, and

Government supports him in his contest at Cambridge against

William Cavendish. This conduct is considered very unhandsome,

and Tierney, who was well disposed towards the Government, told

me yesterday that if the Duke did not take care he thought he

would get swamped with such doings, that the way he went on was

neither fish nor flesh, and he would offend more people than he

would conciliate. At present there is no party, and if Government

have no opponents they have no great body of supporters on whom

they can depend; everything is in confusion--party, politics, and

all.

[19] [Sir William Alexander, then Lord Chief Baron of the

Exchequer. The Court of Exchequer still retained its

Equity jurisdiction.]

[20] [Lord Rosslyn was considered to be a Whig, and Sir

James Scarlett was better known for the Liberal

opinions he once professed than for the Tory opinions

he afterwards assumed.]

[Page Head: LORD PALMERSTON ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.]

The event of last week was Palmerston's speech on the Portuguese

question, which was delivered at a late hour and in an empty

House, but which they say was exceedingly able and eloquent. This

is the second he has made this year of great merit. It was very

violent against Government. He has been twenty years in office

and never distinguished himself before, a proof how many

accidental circumstances are requisite to bring out the talents

which a man may possess. The office he held was one of dull and

dry detail, and he never travelled out of it. He probably stood

in awe of Canning and others, and was never in the Cabinet; but

having lately held higher situations and having acquired more

confidence, and the great men having been removed from the House

of Commons by death or promotion, he has launched forth, and with

astonishing success. Lord Granville told me he had always thought

Palmerston was capable of more than he did, and had told Canning

so, who did not believe it.

Yesterday the King had his racing dinner, which was more

numerously attended and just as magnificent as that he gave last

year, but not half so gay and joyous. I believe he had some gouty

feeling and was in pain, for, contrary to his usual custom, he

hardly spoke, and the Duke of Richmond, who sat next to him, told

me that the little he did say was more about politics than the

turf, and he fancied that something had annoyed him. He looked

well enough, and was very cheerful before dinner. When his health

was drunk 'as Patron of the Jockey Club, and many thanks to him

for condescending to accept that title,' he made a speech, in

which he said that 'he was much gratified by our kindness, and he

could assure us that in withdrawing himself as he had done from

the Jockey Club he was not influenced by any unkindness to any

member of it, or any indifference to the interests of the turf.'

[Page Head: THE COTTAGE.]

June 24th, 1829 {p.212}

Went to Stoke for the Ascot races. There was such a crowd to see

the cup run for as never was seen before. The King was very

anxious and disappointed. I bought the winner for Chesterfield[21]

two hours before the race, he having previously asked the King's

leave, which he gave with many gracious expressions. I have set

about making a reconciliation between the King and Lord Sefton.

Both are anxious to make it up, but each is afraid to make the

first advances. However, Sefton must make them, and he will. The

cause of their quarrel is very old, and signifies little enough

now.... They have been at daggers drawn ever since, and Sefton

has revenged himself by a thousand jokes at the King's expense,

of which his Majesty is well aware. Their common pursuit, and a

desire on the one side to partake of the good things of

the Palace, and on the other side to be free from future

pleasantries, has generated a mutual disposition to make it up,

which is certainly sensible. The King has bought seven horses

successively, for which he has given 11,300 guineas, principally

to win the cup at Ascot, which he has never accomplished. He

might have had Zinganee, but would not, because he fancied the

Colonel would beat him; but when that appeared doubtful he was

very sorry not to have bought him, and complained that the horse

was not offered to him. He is now extravagantly fond of

Chesterfield, who is pretty well bit by it. There is always a

parcel of eldest sons and Lords in possession invited to the

Cottage for the sake of Lady Maria Conyngham. The King likes to

be treated with great deference but without fear, and that people

should be easy with him, and gay, and listen well. There was a

grand consultation at the Cottage between the King, Lieven,

Esterhazy, and the Duke of Cumberland as to the way in which the

ladies should be placed at dinner, the object being that Lady

Conyngham should sit next to his Majesty, though according to

etiquette the two Ambassadresses should sit one on each side of

him. It was contrived by the Duke of Cumberland taking out one of

them and sitting opposite, by which means the lovely Thais sat

beside him and he was happy.

[21] [George Augustus, sixth Earl of Chesterfield, born in

1805, died in 1866. He married in 1830 Anne, daughter

of Lord Forester. In 1829 he was one of the most

brilliant of the young men of fashion of that day,

having succeeded to a large rental and large

accumulations in his minority.]

June 26th, 1829 {p.213}

I met Tierney and Lord Grey at dinner yesterday; the former

wanted to know what passed about the King's Speech at the Council

at Windsor the other day. I had heard nothing, not having been at

the Council, but it is believed that the Ministers had put in the

Speech a sentence expressive of satisfaction and sanguine hopes

about Ireland, and that at the last moment the King would not

agree to this; for after the Duke's audience, which lasted a good

while, there was a Cabinet, and it is supposed they knocked

under, for the paragraph about Ireland is cold enough. The Duke

of Cumberland is thought to have had a hand in all this, and to

have persuaded the King to be obstinate. We talked a great deal

about the situation of the Government and the state of the House

of Commons, and Tierney thinks that unless the Duke strengthens

himself he will not be able to go on; that Rosslyn and Scarlett

are of little use to him, and what he wants is the support of

those who will bring followers in their train, such as Althorp,

who has extensive connections, enjoys consideration, and would be

of real use to him. There is a strong report that Althorp is to

be Chancellor of the Exchequer, Goulburn Speaker, and Sutton[22]

a Peer. At present the Government is anything but strong, but

then there exists no party, nor is there any man of ability and

authority enough to make one. The Duke must strengthen himself,

and have recourse for the purpose either to the Whigs or to

Huskisson and his friends. These latter he detests, and he knows

they hate him and are his bitterest enemies. The Whigs he would

not dislike so much, but the King is averse to have them, and the

Duke is beset by his old suspicion that they want to break up the

Tory party and make him dependent on themselves. At the same

time, in taking in Lord Rosslyn and Scarlett, he has made some

advances towards them, though Lord Grey is displeased at his not

having shown him more deference and communicated to him his

intentions about Rosslyn. Lord Rosslyn asked Lord Grey's advice

as to accepting, and he advised him to take office, explaining at

the same time that he should not pledge himself to support

Government, though he was at present well disposed to do so, and

should be still more disposed when Lord Rosslyn became a part of

it. Tierney said it was very lamentable that there should be such

a deficiency of talent in the rising generation, and remarkable

how few clever young men there are now in the House of Commons.

The King did not like Lord Rosslyn's appointment; he hates all

the Whigs; indeed, he hates the best men of all parties, and

likes none but such as will be subservient to himself. So little

public spirit has he, and so much selfishness, that he would

rather his Government was weak than strong, that they may be the

more dependent upon him; though he only wishes to be powerful in

order to exercise the most puerile caprices, gratify ridiculous

resentments, indulge vulgar prejudices, and amass or squander

money; not one great object connected with national glory or

prosperity ever enters his brain. I am convinced he would turn

out the Duke to-morrow if he could see any means of replacing

him. I don't think I mentioned that when he talked of giving the

child's ball Lady Maria Conyngham said, 'Oh, do, it will be so

nice to see the _two little Queens_ dancing together' (the little

Queen of Portugal and the Princess Victoria), at which he was

beyond measure provoked.

[22] [Right Hon. Manners Sutton, Speaker of the House of

Commons. He retained that office till 1835, when he was

beaten on the great contest with Mr. Abercromby, and

raised to the peerage as Lord Canterbury.]

[Page Head: MADAME DU CAYLA.]

July 10th, 1829 {p.214}

I dined with the Duke of Wellington yesterday; a very large party

for Mesdames the Duchesse d'Escars and Madame du Cayla; the first

is the widow of the Duc d'Escars, who was Premier Maître d'Hôtel

of Louis XVIII., and who was said to have died of one of the

King's good dinners, and the joke was, 'Hier sa Majesté a eu une

indigestion, dont M. le Duc d'Escars est mort.' Madame du

Cayla[23] is come over to prosecute some claim upon this

Government, which the Duke has discovered to be unfounded, and he

had the bluntness to tell her so as they were going to dinner.

She must have been good-looking in her youth; her countenance is

lively, her eyes are piercing, clear complexion, and very

handsome hands and arms; but the best part about her seemed to be

the magnificent pearls she wore, though these are not so fine as

Lady Conyngham's. All king's mistresses seem to have a rage for

pearls; I remember Madame Narischkin's were splendid. Madame du

Cayla is said to be very rich and clever.

[23] [Madame du Cayla had been the _soi-disant_ mistress of

Louis XVIII., or rather the favourite of his declining

years. 'Il fallait une Esther,' to use her own

expression, 'à cet Assuérus.' She was the daughter of

M. Talon, brought up by Madam Campan, and an early

friend of Hortense Beauharnais. Her marriage to an

officer in the Prince de Condé's army was an unhappy

one; and she was left, deserted by her husband, in

straitened circumstances. After the assassination of

the Duc de Berry, M. de la Rochefoucauld, one of the

leaders of the ultra-Royalist party, contrived to throw

her in the way of Louis XVIII., in the hope of

counteracting the more Liberal influence which M. de

Cazes had acquired over the King. Madame du Cayla

became the hope and the mainstay of the altar and the

throne. The scheme succeeded. The King was touched by

her grace and beauty, and she became indispensable to

his happiness. His happiness was said to consist in

inhaling a pinch of snuff from her shoulders, which

were remarkably broad and fair. M. de Lamartine has

related the romance of her life in the thirty-eighth

book of his 'Histoire de la Restauration,' and Béranger

satirised her in the bitterest of his songs--that which

bears the name of 'Octavie':--

Sur les coussins où la douleur l'enchaîne

Quel mal, dis-tu, vous fait ce roi des rois?

Vois-le d'un masque enjoliver sa haine

Pour étouffer notre gloire et nos lois.

Vois ce coeur faux, que cherchent tes caresses,

De tous les siens n'aimer que ses aïeux;

Charger de fer les muses vengeresses,

Et par ses moeurs nous révéler ses dieux.

Peins-nous ces feux, qu'en secret tu redoutes,

_Quand sur ton sein il cuve son nectar,_

Ces feux dont s'indignaient les voûtes

Où plane encor l'aigle du grand César.

It is curious that in 1829 the last mistress of a King

of France should have visited London under the reign of

the last mistress of a King of England.]

[Page Head: WELLINGTON'S ANECDOTES OF GEORGE IV.]

After dinner the Duke talked to me for a long time about the King

and the Duke of Cumberland, and his quarrel with the latter. He

began about the King's making Lord Aberdeen stay at the Cottage

the other day when he had engaged all the foreign Ambassadors to

dine with him in London. Aberdeen represented this to him, but

his Majesty said 'it did not matter, he should stay, and the

Ambassadors should for once see that he was King of England.' 'He

has no idea,' said the Duke, 'of what a King of England ought to

do, or he would have known that he ought to have made Aberdeen go

and receive them, instead of keeping him there.' He said the King

was very clever and amusing, but that with a surprising memory he

was very inaccurate, and constantly told stories the details of

which all his auditors must know to be false. One day he was

talking of the late King, and asserted that George III. had said

to himself, 'Of all the men I have ever known you are the one on

whom I have the greatest dependence, and you are the most perfect

gentleman.' Another day he said 'that he recollected the old Lord

Chesterfield, who once said to him, "Sir, you are the fourth

Prince of Wales I have known, and I must give your Royal Highness

one piece of advice: stick to your father; as long as you adhere

to your father you will be a great and a happy man, but if you

separate yourself from him you will be nothing and an unhappy

one;" and, by God (added the King), I never forgot that advice,

and acted upon it all my life.' 'We all,' said the Duke, 'looked

at one another with astonishment.' He is extremely clever and

particularly ingenious in turning the conversation from any

subject he does not like to discuss.

'I,' added the Duke of Wellington, 'remember calling upon him the

day he received the news of the battle of Navarino. I was not a

Minister, but Commander-in-Chief, and after having told me the

news he asked me what I thought of it. I said that I knew nothing

about it, was ignorant of the instructions that had been given to

the admiral, and could not give any opinion; but "one thing is

clear to me, that your Majesty's ships have suffered very much,

and that you ought to reinforce your fleet directly, for whenever

you have a maritime force yours ought to be superior to all

others." This advice he did not like; I saw this, and he said,

"Oh, the Emperor of Russia is a man of honour," and then he began

talking, and went on to Venice, Toulon, St. Petersburg, all over

the Continent, and from one place and one subject to another,

till he brought me to Windsor Castle. I make it a rule never to

interrupt him, and when in this way he tries to get rid of a

subject in the way of business which he does not like, I let him

talk himself out, and then quietly put before him the matter in

question, so that he cannot escape from it. I remember when the

Duke of Newcastle was going to Windsor with a mob at his heels to

present a petition (during the late discussions) I went down to

him and showed him the petition, and told him that they ought to

be prevented from coming. He went off and talked upon every

subject but that which I had come about, for an hour and a half.

I let him go on till he was tired, and then I said, "But the

petition, sir; here it is, and an answer must be sent. I had

better write to the Duke of Newcastle and tell him your Majesty

will receive it through the Secretary of State; and, if you

please, I will write the letter before I leave the house." This I

did, finished my business in five minutes, and went away with the

letter in my pocket. I know him so well that I can deal with him

easily, but anybody who does not know him, and who is afraid of

him, would have the greatest difficulty in getting on with him.

One extraordinary peculiarity about him is, that the only thing

he fears is ridicule. He is afraid of nothing which is hazardous,

perilous, or uncertain; on the contrary, he is all for braving

difficulties; but he dreads ridicule, and this is the reason why

the Duke of Cumberland, whose sarcasms he dreads, has such power

over him, and Lord Anglesey likewise; both of them he hates in

proportion as he fears them.' I said I was very much, surprised

to hear this, as neither of these men were wits, or likely to

make him ridiculous; that if he had been afraid of Sefton or

Alvanley it could have been understood. 'But,' rejoined the Duke,

'he never sees these men, and he does not mind anybody he does

not see; but the Duke of Cumberland and Lord Anglesey he cannot

avoid seeing, and the fear he has of what they may say to him, as

well as of him, keeps him in awe of them. No man, however, knows

the Duke of Cumberland better than he does; indeed, all I know of

the Duke of Cumberland I know from him, and so I told him one

day. I remember asking him why the Duke of Cumberland was so

unpopular, and he said, "Because there never was a father well

with his son, or husband with his wife, or lover with his

mistress, or a friend with his friend, that he did not try to

make mischief between them." And yet he suffers this man to have

constant access to him, to say what he will to him, and often

acts under his influence.' I said, 'You and the Duke of

Cumberland speak now, don't you?' 'Yes, we speak. The King spoke

to me about it, and wanted me to make him an apology. I told him

it was quite impossible, "Why," said he, "you did not mean to

offend the Duke of Cumberland, I am sure." "No, sir," said I; "I

did not wish to offend him, but I did not say a word that I did

not mean. When we meet the Royal Family in society, they are our

superiors, and we owe them all respect, and I should readily

apologise for anything I might have said offensive to the Duke;

but in the House of Lords we are their peers, and for what I say

there I am responsible to the House alone." "But," said the King,

"he said you turned on him as if you meant to address yourself to

him personally." "I did mean it, sir," said I, "and I did so

because I knew that he had been here, that he had heard things

from your Majesty which he had gone and misrepresented and

misstated in other quarters, and knowing that, I meant to show

him that I was aware of it. I am sorry that the Duke is offended,

but I cannot help it, and I cannot make him an apology."'

[Page Head: DUKES OF WELLINGTON AND CUMBERLAND.]

The Duke went on, 'I was so afraid he would tell the Duke that I

was sorry for what I had said, that I repeated to him when I went

away, "Now, sir, remember that I will not apologise to the Duke,

and I hope your Majesty will therefore not convey any such idea

to his mind." However, he spoke to him, I suppose, for the next

time I met the Duke he bowed to me. I immediately called on him,

but he did not return my visit. On a subsequent occasion [I

forget what he said it was] I called on him again, and he

returned my visit the same day.'

The Duke then talked of the letter which the Duke of Cumberland

had just written (as Grand Master of the Orange Lodges) to

Enniskillen, which he thought was published with the most

mischievous intentions. However, he said, 'I know not what he is

at, but while I am conscious of going on in a straightforward

manner I am not afraid of him, or of anything he can do,' which I

was surprised to hear, because it looked as if he was afraid of

him. I asked him whether, with all the cleverness he thought

belonged to the King, he evinced great acuteness in discussing

matters of business, to which he replied, 'Oh, no, not at all,

the worst judgment that can be.' This was not the first time I

had heard the Duke's opinion of the King. I remember him saying

something to the Duke of Portland about him during the Queen's

trial indicative of his contempt for him.

In the meantime the Duke of Cumberland, instead of returning to

Berlin, has sent for the Duchess and his son, and means to take

up his abode in this country, in hopes of prevailing upon the

King to dismiss his Ministers and make a Government under his own

auspices; but however weak the Government may be, he will not

succeed, for the King has an habitual reliance upon the Duke [of

Wellington] which overcomes the mortification and dislike he

feels at being dependent upon him; and, besides, the materials do

not exist out of which a Government could be formed that would

have the support of the House of Commons. The great want which

this Administration experiences is that of men of sufficient

information and capacity to direct the complicated machinery of

our trade and finances and adjust our colonial differences.

Huskisson, Grant, and Palmerston were the ablest men, and the two

first the best informed in the Government. Fitzgerald knows

nothing of the business of his office, still less of the

principles of trade; he is idle, but quick. Of Murray I know

nothing; he is popular in his office, but he has neither the

capacity nor the knowledge of Huskisson.