Catholic claims, I have thought it right to record, upon the almost
irrefragable authority from which I received it. My testimony would
certainly lead to a directly opposite conclusion, _viz._, that he was
often willing to leave an impression on those with whom he conversed
that he was friendly to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament,
but that he was studiously cautious of saying in distinct terms that
he deemed that measure either practicable or expedient. The Duke of
Orleans (Louis Philippe) told me that in the year 1814 or 1815, I forget
which, he distinctly avowed his hostility to all concession whatever;
and explained the nature of his repugnance to it and of his scruples, by
saying that if Catholics could be lawfully admitted to political power
they could not be lawfully excluded from the Crown, and the title of his
family would in that case cease to be legitimate. This remark, however,
was made at a period and in a conversation where it was evidently the
object of the English Prince to impress on the Duke of Orleans the duty
of implicit obedience to what he considered the “legitimate” heir to
the Bourbon throne, and to imply that it was religious, not political,
considerations which had justified the English in departing from the
regular line of succession.
APPENDIX C
LORD HOLLAND TO LORD GREY
(See p. 293)
(_Containing his report of a conversation with Sir John Leach._)
_12th June, 1820._
DEAR GREY,
I am hoarse, lame, gouty, nervous, and annoyed, but must write you
a letter—not about my motion. I daresay that, at your distance, you
disapprove it; but I am right, and were you here you would think so.
However, I leave that to be explained by my speech, if I can deliver it,
by time, and by conversation, if I am ever to get any of that commodity
with you again. But there is a business more embarrassing. I shall not
mention names by letter; you will probably guess, and perhaps your
judgment on things will not be less impartial and good if you do not.
Since Saturday’s post I have had two conversations not of my seeking.
I was told Ministers expected, possibly meant, to be beaten to-night
in the House of Commons on the question of adjournment, and then meant
to resign to-morrow, leaving the King at issue with his Commons and
without a Government. An answer was to be made last night by Liverpool
to a remonstrance sent to him by the King against Canning’s speech,
which would, no doubt, maintain Canning stoutly (it did so), and thereby
furnish an opportunity for dismissing the whole Ministry before their
defeat in the Commons. My informant stated _himself_ to be at a loss
what to advise, because it depended on the practicability of forming a
new Ministry. He therefore consulted me, _as his friend_, what he ought
to do for his own honour and character and for the King’s service; his
notion, he added, had been to advise the King to dismiss the present men
directly (that was last night), to fetter any new Government he should
appoint with _no_ conditions whatever, and to send for me, Lansdowne and
_Grenville!_ to-day. In the course of our conversation when your name
occurred, he always dwelt on the great pressure of time, and said with
concern that you were in Northumberland.
The substance of what I said was that while an ostensible Ministry was in
existence it was impossible for me, with any regard to my own character,
feelings, or principles, to convey through him or any one else any
opinion on the propriety or the impropriety of dismissing that Ministry;
on the way in which such dismissal could be accomplished; or, indeed, on
the practicability of forming any other Government. I was, therefore,
compelled to decline saying one word on those topics or giving him any
advice how to act.
I told him, however, as my private friend, what was, and long had been,
my situation in political connection. From my long experience of your
public conduct, confidence in your abilities, and private affection and
friendship for you, I had transferred to you that political attachment I
had felt for my uncle when alive. There might be, from there being less
disparity in years and possibly in understanding between us, some slight
difference in the degree, but none in the nature, of that political
attachment. That, unless so improbable an event as a difference between
us on some great question affecting the general policy of the country
should ever occur, I not only could never be of any service to the King
in office _without_ you, but could only be of service to him by being
brought there _by and under_ you. The King, I supposed, must infer this
from his knowledge of my general party principles. I was sure I could not
be five minutes in his closet on matters connected with the formation
of a Ministry, without his knowing it distinctly. Without reference,
therefore, to present circumstances, I showed that sending for me would
be quite idle, unless the intention were not only to admit you as a
Minister, but to consult and to entrust you in the task of forming
one; and if that were the intention, the direct method, always the
best, was perhaps more emphatically so, because something like personal
estrangement had either subsisted or been rumoured to subsist between
you and the King. As a general, though not invariable, rule, and always
without reference to the immediate subject of our interview, I hinted
that a King of England did best to place his confidence in some one man
or, at least, some one party, and to leave to that person’s or that
party’s discretion all union and coalition with others. I did not like
to object to a man I so sincerely respect as Grenville, but I contrived
in the course of conversation carelessly to observe that all political
connection with him had dropped.
I then bantered my friend on the little comparative importance he
attached to [the] House of Commons, and to various great measures on
which men entrusted with power must make up their minds. He called the
House of Commons _wild_, and seemed surprised when I told him that if he
thought them _wild_ he would think the public, if he knew their feelings
on the same subject, quite _frantic_. He seemed to apprehend that, in
spite of the public clamour and Parliamentary unwillingness to do much,
the King would not be satisfied with a separation or even a divorce,
unless the Queen were deprived of her title and dignity as well as of
her relation to him. I could not help saying, “That in that case he was
a damned unreasonable fellow.” My friend seemed to imagine there could
be no important measure but the Catholic question, from which remark
I collected that that point might be conceded. I told him I differed
with him extremely there. There were in my mind many measures—popular
measures—of more importance to the stability and character of a Ministry
and to the country than any squabble between man and wife could be: that
as far as I had weight with parties in power I should recommend them to
be very inflexible about such measures, and much more so than about men.
I purposely avoided marking too distinctly what they were, but observed
that [the] more a Government was harassed with such odious and painful
subjects as the domestic quarrels of [the] Royal Family, the more prudent
and the more incumbent upon them it would be to insist on everything that
could benefit or, consistently with safety, gratify the country. I am
afraid this part of my conversation did not please, and I was sorry to
perceive it did not.
I need not tell you how I felt and do feel your absence. My line is,
indeed, clear, whether you are absent or not; but indeed, my dear Grey,
it is hardly fair to expect that that of other persons can be so. They
cannot take upon themselves to act _for_ you.
It is quite impossible for them to consult you on the emergencies that
may arise at such a distance—an endeavour to do so is tantamount to not
acting at all.
Yours,
VASSALL HOLLAND.
I hardly know what I have written: I am so harassed with cold and
business.
Since I wrote, Lansdowne and Tierney have been here: both have had
similar communications through different channels, and Lord Buckingham,
I am told, has taken one of the same kind down to Dropmore. The only
difference is that Lansdowne’s and Tierney’s informants (both political
friends of ours) said they were authorised by [the] King to communicate
and consult: my friend only asked me my advice for the regulation of
his own conduct. Tierney said nothing could be done in [the] House of
Commons, _and_ the King’s cause there was lost; and he suggested, not
to dismiss the Ministry, but to leave them to entangle themselves and
disgrace themselves more. Lansdowne is most properly afraid of putting
ourselves at all at the mercy of the Court in case of a change, but seems
to think that union with some of the present men, Liverpool especially,
would secure you more effectually against that evil than I think it
would; but I cannot enter into all the various views and speculations and
shades of opinion. Lansdowne constantly and naturally urges your coming
up.
Yours,
VASSALL HOLLAND.
I should add, in case Tierney forgets it, that his informant said
distinctly the King had no personal objection to your being, not only a
Minister, but first Minister, and his informant, I am sure, would wish to
see you so.
APPENDIX D
JUNIUS LETTERS
On Tuesday, May 29, 1834, I dined at Norfolk House; and the conversation
turned, after dinner, as it does too often everywhere, on the question
who was the author of _Junius_. However, on this occasion I heard
something new and worth remembering.
Lord Albemarle, a man of a good memory and strict veracity, said he had
once been present at a conversation (after much wine had been drunk)
between Mr. Dudley North and Sir Philip Francis. The former rallied the
latter somewhat rudely as the author of _Junius_, said it was vain to
deny it, and that everybody so considered him, and took him to task for
various opinions and expressions in the work. Francis grew angry, and
with more solemnity than was usual exclaimed, “Do you then mean, sir,
seriously to tell me that I am a scoundrel or a liar? I have denied
distinctly my being the author, and after that they who believe I am must
believe me to be a liar or a scoundrel or both.”
Dudley North then changed his battery; and, disclaiming all serious
suspicion of the fact, implied he was unequal to the task, with much
more to vex him and put him off his guard. At last he said: “In short,
it is idle to talk so much about it: we all, in truth, know how it
is—Lloyd[432] wrote the letters and you corrected the press.”
Francis at these words seemed startled; he coloured and answered, as
Albemarle thought, with emotions of surprise: “_You have made much worse
guesses, sir, in your life than that_.”
It tallies with my impressions of Francis’s conversations, inasmuch as
he always seemed to me to know or imply something about _Junius_, but to
_deny_ strictly his being the author.
FOOTNOTES
[1] [The ruler of Portugal at this time was Queen Maria I., who had
succeeded her father King Joseph in 1777. She married her uncle Dom
Pedro, who was proclaimed King conjointly with her. After the successive
death of her husband and eldest son in 1788, she became insane, and the
country was governed by her son Dom John, who was officially declared
Regent in 1799.]
[2] [Percy, sixth Viscount Strangford (1780-1855), Minister
Plenipotentiary to the Portuguese Court.
Early in November the Prince Regent of Portugal, alarmed by the threats
of Napoleon, had issued a declaration detaining British subjects and
property in Lisbon. Lord Strangford, after a final remonstrance, at once
went on board the English fleet, which was under the command of Sir
Sidney Smith. A rigorous blockade of the Tagus was enforced, but this
state of affairs only lasted a few days. Intercourse with the Court was
renewed, and Lord Strangford returned to Lisbon on the 27th.]
[3] My authorities for the facts related in the text are Sir Graham
Moore;* Mr. Sitaro, a Portuguese merchant who victualled our fleets from
Lisbon; Mr. Chamberlayne, then agent of packets at Lisbon, subsequently
Consul at Rio Janeiro; and Mr. Bell, an English merchant, whose talents
and intrepidity during the French occupation of Portugal should have
entitled him to the place of Consul in 1809, but were found unequal to
contend with the qualifications of Mr. Jeffrey,† a member of the House
of Commons distinguished for his coarse calumnies and unfounded charges
against Lord St. Vincent.—V.H.
[* Admiral Sir Graham Moore (1764-1843), a younger brother of Sir John
Moore. The commander of the English fleet which escorted the Portuguese
Royal Family to the Brazils.]
[† M.P. for Poole. His attacks on Lord St. Vincent took place in 1805 and
1806.]
[4] [For Lord Holland’s note on Lord Strangford’s dispatch, see Appendix
A.]
[5] [Domingo Antonio de Souza-Continho, Marquis de Funchal (1765-1832),
Portuguese Ambassador in England.]
[6] [An expedition against Mexico. See _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, vol.
ii p. 117.]
[7] [The detention of Prince Ferdinand at Bayonne, whither Charles IV.
had fled, and the rapid concentration of French armies on Madrid had
caused the latent fury of the Spanish people to reach boiling point. A
riot took place on May 2 in Madrid, in which five hundred French and
many Spaniards were slain; and this within a few days was the signal for
risings in every province of the country.]
[8] [Francis Horner, Esq. (1778-1817), a leading politician on the Whig
side. One of the originators of the _Edinburgh Review_.]
[9] [John, tenth Earl of Westmorland (1759-1841), Lord Privy Seal.]
[10] [Florida Blanca (1728-1808), Spanish statesman. He was head of the
Government from 1777 to 1791, when he was dismissed by Charles IV. and
thrown into prison.]
[11] [Don Gaspar Melchior de Jovellanos (1744-1811), Spanish statesman
and author.]
[12] [William Wickham (1761-1840). His activity as British Minister in
Switzerland caused the French Directory to demand his expulsion in 1798.
He was a member of the Treasury Board under Lord Grenville, 1806-1807.]
[13] [See _ante_, p. 11.]
[14] [The lenient terms of the Convention were generally condemned in
England, and were even referred to with disapprobation in the King’s
Speech at the commencement of the following Session, (January 19, 1809).]
[15] [Sir William Napier states that Moore obtained the command owing to
the goodwill of the King, and that a few months before the Ministers had
attempted to drive him into private life. Their hostility was fostered by
Canning, whose friend Drummond, the British envoy at Palermo, Moore had
thwarted when in command of the troops in Sicily. Sir John Moore wrote
at this period in his Diary, edited by Major-General Sir J. F. Maurice
(vol. ii. p. 250): “I understand that several of the Cabinet have taken a
personal dislike to me, though I have seldom seen them, and they can know
nothing of me. They wish to hold up Sir Arthur Wellesley.... Though they
were forced to approve what I had done in Sweden, yet it was against the
grain, for I took no trouble to conceal the ignorance which had sent us
there, when they should have known from the character of the King and the
weakness of his force that it was impossible for anything to be done.”]
[16] Sir John Moore was a Scotchman.—V.H.
[17] [Sir H. E. Bunbury, in his _Narrative_, says of him: “His manner was
singularly agreeable to those whom he liked, but to those whom he did not
esteem his bearing was severe.”]
[18] [Right Hon. John Hookham Frere (1769-1846), diplomatist and author.
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1799-1800: Minister at Lisbon, 1800:
and at Madrid, 1802. After his failure in Spain, he refused further
employment, and devoted himself to literature. Frere, being an intimate
friend of Canning, was not likely to regard Moore with favour or to make
any great exertions on his behalf.]
[19] [Manuel de Godoy, Duke of Alcudia (1767-1851), favourite and
Minister of Charles IV.]
[20] [General Sir David Baird (1757-1829), Sir John Moore’s
second-in-command.]
[21] Honble. Bladen Capel, who commanded the _Endymion_. (The account in
the text was given me by Captain Basil Hall, then a midshipman in that
ship, and confirmed by Capel himself.—V.H.)
[Afterwards Admiral Sir Thomas Bladen Capel, K.C.B. (1776-1853), youngest
son of William Anne, fourth Earl of Essex.]
[22] [This letter, dated January 13, 1809, was written to Lord
Castlereagh (_Castlereagh Correspondence_, vii. 26). The passage referred
to in the text is as follows: “Your lordship knows that had I followed
my own opinion as a military man, I should have retired with the army
from Salamanca. The Spanish armies were then beaten. I was sensible,
however, that had the British been withdrawn, the loss of the cause would
have been imputed to their retreat. It was for this reason that I made
the march to Sagunhan. As a diversion it succeeded: I brought the whole
disposable force of the French against this army, and it has been allowed
to follow it without a single movement being made to favour my retreat.”]
[23] [The Austrians made no actual move against France till March, 1809,
but the intelligence of their activity caused Napoleon’s departure from
Spain. He must, however, probably have realised, judging from an order
issued when he was about to leave the army, that the escape of Moore and
his force was ultimately certain.]
[24] [General Sir Robert Wilson (1777-1849), author of the _History of
the British Expedition to Egypt_. He was dismissed from the army for a
supposed participation in a riot on the occasion of Queen Caroline’s
funeral, but was reinstated in 1830.]
[25] [Commander-in-Chief in Portugal for a few months.]
[26] [He was created Marquis de la Union, an appellation curiously
unsuited to his record in Spain.]
[27] [William Adam (1751-1839), at this time Attorney-General to the
Prince of Wales and trustee to the Duke of York in certain private
matters.]
[28] [Sir David Dundas (1735-1820), Commander-in-Chief, 1809-1811.]
[29] [Mr. Creevey writes in his diary, dated, November 12, 1809: “I meet
Abercromby in my walk.... When I tell him Wardle is on his legs again,
all he can say is, ‘Wardle is the agent of the Duke of Kent.’ Was there
ever such nonsense?” (_Creevey Papers_, vol. i. p. 113). Creevey seems,
however, to have been a personal friend of Colonel Wardle. “I can’t bring
myself to think there is anything bad in him, and I have looked at him in
all ways in order to be sure of him. I know he is in distress for money,
but all men from his part of the country dine with him and speak well of
him.”]
[30] [William, afterwards third Earl of Radnor (1779-1869).]
[31] [John Charles, Viscount Althorp (1782-1845), who succeeded his
father as Earl Spencer in 1834; Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1830-1834.]
[32] [Right Hon. George Ponsonby (1755-1817), son of John Ponsonby, Esq.
He distinguished himself in the Irish Parliament, and was made Lord
Chancellor of Ireland in 1806. He was leader of the Whigs in the House of
Commons from 1808 until his death in 1817, which resulted from a stroke
of paralysis in the House.]
[33] [Sir William Napier states that the primary object of the expedition
was to insure the safety of the town and Spanish fleet against any
possibility of capture by the French. The negotiations finally fell
through, owing to the wavering policy of the English Cabinet and the
ill-judged diplomatic methods of Mr. Frere. The Supreme Junta refused
to allow the British troops to enter the town, though the mob were
clamouring for their admittance. After Sir George Smith’s death the
command devolved on General Mackenzie, who returned with the troops to
Lisbon after all hope of a satisfactory arrangement was at an end.]
[34] [Sir Sidney Smith had been sent out to command the South American
Station in 1808.]
[35] [It is perhaps worthy of note that Lord Castlereagh’s biographer,
Sir Archibald Alison, treats the expedition to Walcheren as one of a
number of important moves against Napoleon. He considers that the War
Secretary’s policy, unaltered throughout his tenure of office, was
to break Napoleon’s power of meeting Great Britain on the sea, and
illustrates his view by the mention of the successive expeditions aimed
at the destruction or capture of fleets belonging to European Powers in
subjection to France—_viz._, the bombardment of Copenhagen, the blockade
of the Russian fleet in the Baltic, the expeditions to Lisbon and Cadiz,
etc. Had Lord Castlereagh been able to persuade the Cabinet to undertake
this expedition in 1808 instead of 1809, the destruction of the French
fleet then building at Antwerp would have been assured. As it was, a
daring and forward policy and a strict obedience to the original orders
from home would have attained its object; but the incapacity and jealousy
of the commanders gave Napoleon time to reinforce his garrisons, and
doomed the British force to inactivity and disease in the swamps of the
Scheldt.]
[36] [John, second Earl of Chatham (1756-1835). He held the posts of
First Lord of the Admiralty, 1788-1794; Lord Privy Seal, 1794-1796; Lord
President of the Council, 1796-1801; Master-General of the Ordnance,
1801-1806; Governor of Gibraltar, 1820-1835. Alison states that, “Lord
Castlereagh was constrained by the highest influence to offer the command
to the Earl of Chatham.”]
[37] [A monument was erected there by Lady Chatham, consisting of
a marble urn, with a medallion by John Bacon. It is stated in the
_Dictionary of National Biography_ that the memorial was removed to
Stowe, and is now at Revesby Abbey, Lincolnshire.]
[38] [He served in Canada on Sir Guy Carleton’s staff from 1774 to March,
1776, when he was removed by his father from the army, owing to the
continuance of the American War. He returned to the service two years
later on the outbreak of war with France.]
[39] [Admiral Sir Home Popham (1762-1820). He had been attached to the
Duke of York’s army in Flanders in 1795, and had thus gained experience
and local knowledge of its seaboard. In this expedition he commanded the
_Venerable_, seventy-four guns.]
[40] [The newly appointed Master-General of the Ordnance.]
[41] [Joseph Fouché, Duke of Otranto (1763-1820), one of Napoleon’s chief
agents in the overthrow of the Directory. At this period Minister of
Police and of the Interior.]
[42] The circumstances related in the text, which I committed to paper
in 1817 or 1818, have been confirmed this year by the publication of
Fouché’s memoirs: the agent, I learnt from those memoirs, to be no other
than Ouvrard.—V.H.
[Gabriel Julien Ouvrard (1770-1846), French financier.]
[43] [A story is told in the _Memoirs of Sir Charles Napier_, on the
authority of Lady Castlereagh, that Canning was willing to reinstate
Castlereagh if he would give up Sir John Moore. Alison states the cause
of the duel to have been the fact that Castlereagh detected, in the
intrigue, a design of Canning for self-advancement and resented it
accordingly.]
[44] Lord Grenville says, in a letter to me, October 17, 1809: “I really
think, by dint of showing how ill he has been used, Castlereagh will
begin to make himself regretted. It will be a singular conclusion of the
business, if the compassion of the public should be excited in favour of
the one Minister who was perhaps of them all the most unpopular.”
Such was, however, the conclusion, and Lord Grenville turned out a
prophet.—V.H.
[45] [Right Hon. Charles Bragge Bathurst, cousin of Lord Bathurst. He
accepted the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from Lord
Liverpool in 1812.]
[46] [Sir Benjamin Hobhouse (1757-1831), father of the first Lord
Broughton. Secretary to the Board of Control under Addington in 1803, and
created a baronet in 1812.]
[47] Mr. Sydney Smith said coarsely, but wittily, that the Whig canvass
for Lord Grenville at Oxford was like the trustees of the Magdalen
applying to place a reclaimed prostitute at a baudy house.—V.H.
[48] [Better known as Lord Wycombe. His wife was the widow of Sir Duke
Gifford, of Castle Jordan, in Ireland. Lord Lansdowne was succeeded by
his half-brother, Lord Henry Petty.]
[49] [Princess Liechstenstein, in her book on Holland House, alludes to
this story as a fabrication. Her version, however, is that the lines
were composed by Lord Holland, describing the probable nature of his own
death.]
[50] [Son of William, first Marquess of Lansdown, by his second wife,
Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick; born in 1780.]