should be First Lord of the Treasury, but Lord Wellesley declared to
the two Lords in the first communication, and had probably stated to
His Royal Highness beforehand, that he wished to decline that office
and to leave the new Ministry, if formed, to cast the parts among
themselves.—V.H.
[142] [Sir William Grant (1752-1832), Master of the Rolls from 1801 to
1817.]
[143] This passage was written in the autumn of 1821. Within three months
the remark was in some senses practically refuted, for Lord Wellesley was
appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, but whether at the suggestion of
Lord Liverpool’s Ministry or with its reluctant and extorted consent, I
cannot determine. March, 1822.—V.H.
[144] [See _ante_, p. 87.]
[145] [William Harry, third Earl of Darlington (1766-1842). He was
created Duke of Cleveland in 1833.]
[146] The Duke of Norfolk, on the first offer, gladly accepted it, and
returning to his house said to Mr. Stephenson, who lived with him, with
some exaltation, “I am Lord Privy Seal.” He afterwards found he had
no Whig, and scarcely any other, colleague; and he was off, relating
on his return home the very next day to the same gentleman, with some
pleasantry, “I am now not Lord Privy Seal.”—V.H.
[147] [On June 8.]
[148] [The principal members of the new Government were as follows: Earl
of Liverpool, First Lord of the Treasury; Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign
Secretary; Lord Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty; Earl Bathurst,
Secretary for War and Colonies; Lord Sidmouth, Secretary for Home
Department; Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor; Lord Harrowby, Lord President of
the Council.]
[149] [Mr. Stuart Wortley’s motion on May 21 for an efficient
Administration. See _ante_, p. 136.]
[150] [In 1813.]
[151] [William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the champion of the Bill for the
Abolition of the Slave Trade, which was passed in 1807.]
[152] [See _ante_, p. 132.]
[153] Major a longinquo reverentia.—V.H.
[154] [War broke out before the news of the repeal of the Orders in
Council reached the United States.]
[155] [James Stephen (1758-1832), brother-in-law and an active supporter
of Wilberforce in his efforts against the slave trade. A pamphlet
published by him in 1805, entitled _War in Disguise_, is supposed to have
suggested the Orders in Council. He retired from Parliament in 1815,
disgusted at the refusal of the Government to support a bill for the
registration of slaves.]
[156] [For Lord Holland’s previous attempts to modify the law with
respect to _ex officio_ informations, see _ante_, p. 99.]
[157] In 1819.—V.H.
[158] “C’etoit un de mes caprices,” said that great Prince of him at
Elba. He had educated and fostered him like a son, he promoted him like a
favourite, and he was basely betrayed by him at Fontainebleau in 1814. I
remember Sir Lionel Copley, in 1799, defended his suspicions of General
Moreau by a humorous, not to say nonsensical, coincidence: “When there
are prospects of restorations by treachery,” said he, “I do not like a
General whose name begins with an _M_.” What maledictions would he not
have uttered when _M_ar_m_ont and _M_orillo were added to the list of
_M_onk and _M_oreau!—V.H.
[Marmont, Duke of Ragusa (1774-1852) served in the artillery with
Napoleon, and was his principal aide-de-camp in his Italian campaign of
1796. He reached the rank of Marshal in 1809, being promoted for his
success at Wagram. He defended Paris in 1813 against the Allies while
there was any hope of success, but afterwards went over to the enemy, and
was among the number of those excepted by Napoleon from the amnesty on
his return from Elba.]
[159] [Lord Wellington had just commenced his lunch, after a morning
spent in fruitless manœuvring, when an important movement on the part of
the French was announced. His practised eye at once took in Marmont’s
faulty dispositions. “By God!” he exclaimed, “that’ll do!” and, hurling
all his available troops at the weak spot, gained a signal victory.]
[160] [On whom the command of the French troops had devolved.]
[161] [This was the occasion of the publication of _Rejected Addresses_.]
[162] [Robert William Elliston (1774-1831), an actor of note, and a
successful manager. He took the management of Drury Lane Theatre in 1819,
and remained until 1826 when obliged by bankruptcy to resign the post.]
[163] [When the Committee was formed in 1810 to rebuild the theatre, it
was arranged that Sheridan and his family should be bought out. It was
then stipulated that he should “have no concern or connection of any kind
with the new undertaking.” This Sheridan looked on as a matter of form,
and was greatly enraged when Whitbread, as Chairman of the Committee,
rigidly enforced the clause.]
[164] Sir Robert Wilson* was sent from the army to Alexander, to inform
him that they were resolved to consider any truce or pacification
that he should sign as extorted from him by force or treachery; as
the act of Romanzow,† not of their Sovereign; and they authorised Sir
Robert to convey his opinion to His Imperial Majesty, as that of a
foreign observer, that the army would not obey any orders founded on
a pacification. The result of this and other intimations of the sort
was the dismissal of Romanzow and the adoption of firmer councils. The
Empress Dowager, as well as the Empress, took an opportunity of assuring
Sir Robert Wilson that the Emperor was now determined to abandon all
notion of temporising or yielding, and that he might be depended upon.
(From conversation with Sir R. Wilson, 1825).—V.H.
[* Sir Robert Wilson had just satisfactorily concluded a mission to
Constantinople and St. Petersburg dealing with the negotiations for the
re-establishment of peace between Turkey and Russia. He was at that
time attached to the Russian army, with instructions to communicate all
information to Lord Cathcart, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg.]
[† Count Nicholas Romanzow (1753-1826) the Russian Chancellor.]
[165] [See _ante_, p. 102.]
[166] [William Conyngham Plunket, afterwards first Lord Plunket
(1764-1854), at this time member for Dublin University. Lord Castlereagh
declared that Mr. Plunket’s speech on February 25 dealing with this
question, “would never be forgotten.” He was appointed Lord Chancellor of
Ireland by Lord Grey in 1830.]
[167] [Gilbert Elliot, afterwards second Earl of Minto (1782-1859)].
[168] [Charles Abbot (1757-1829), created Lord Colchester in 1816. He
held the post of Speaker of the House of Commons from 1802 until his
elevation to the peerage.]
[169] [Lord Morpeth brought a motion in April, 1814, that the address
of the Speaker on the occasion referred to should not be treated as a
precedent; but it was defeated by a large majority. His action, however,
had the desired effect, and since that time no Speaker in his address has
referred to measures which have not been passed by the House of Commons.]
[170] [Hon. Richard FitzPatrick, second son of John, first Earl of Upper
Ossory, and Evelyn, daughter of John, Earl Gower. He was born in 1748,
and, entering the Army, rose to the rank of General.
Mr. Creevey, in mentioning his death, says of him, “I thought you might
like to hear these particulars respecting the end of by far the most
clever of the quiet class I have ever seen, and the most perfect judgt.
of any class.”]
[171] [April to December, 1783. He accompanied the Duke of Portland to
Ireland in 1782.]
[172] [It is interesting to note that Lord Grenville’s chief objection to
the policy of the Government was, that they were treating the interests
of the East India Company as of the highest importance, whereas he
considered that those of the British Crown should have the foremost
place. He maintained that a public assertion should be made of the
sovereignty of the Crown in India and the power of Parliament to make
laws for the general welfare of that vast country.]
[173] [See vol. ii. p. 149, in the earlier portion of Lord Holland’s
Memoir. In that year, owing to a report that the Princess had been
delivered of an illegitimate child, a Committee, consisting of Lords
Erskine, Ellenborough, Grenville, and Spencer, with Sir S. Romilly, the
Solicitor-General, as their legal adviser, was appointed to examine into
her conduct. They stated in their report that there was no vestige of
truth in the primary charge, but that in their opinion the levity of
her behaviour on several occasions was worthy of censure. The matter
again came to the front in 1813, owing to the Prince Regent’s refusal in
October of the preceding year to allow the Princess to see her daughter,
although she had gone specially to Windsor for that purpose. Furious at
the insult, she wrote the letters referred to in the text to her husband
and the Speaker of the House of Commons. A debate in that House ensued,
and the letters and papers were referred to a Committee of the Privy
Council, who reported that under the circumstances they considered that
the intercourse between mother and daughter should be regulated and
restricted.]
[174] [Whitbread.]
[175] [The Hon. Mrs. Lisle, a lady in attendance on the Princess, and a
witness in the case.]
[176] Mr. Brougham related to me this and the following facts many years
afterwards, and when he could have no object in deceiving me.—V.H.
[177] I have questioned persons who attended her medically. The
duties and delicacies of their profession would, of course, prevent
their acknowledging such facts, if ascertained by their professional
attendance, even after her death; but the manner in which such a hint was
received, the official tone of every answer given to my inquiries, the
manifest embarrassment those inquiries occasioned, and the absence of
all direct contradiction or disposition to explode the idea as absurd,
confirmed me in my previous surmises. I have no doubt she was mad.—V.H.
[178] [At the battle of Navarette in 1367.]
[179] [Sir George Murray (1772-1846), second son of Sir William Murray,
of Ochtertyre. He was promoted to the rank of Major-General in 1812, and,
entering the House of Commons in 1823, became Secretary of State for the
Colonies in the Duke of Wellington’s Administration of 1828.]
[180] Mr. Fazakerley, a man of accuracy and veracity, soon after seeing
Napoleon at Elba in 1814 or 1815, related to me the following admission
of that extraordinary man, and has frequently alluded to or repeated
it since. He said that in all prudence he ought to have made peace
immediately after the victories of Bautzen and Lutzen, and before the
great battle of Leipsic. “Mais,” continued he, “je me croyois assez fort
et je me suis trompé. C’etoit là assurément le moment de faire la paix,
aussi l’aurois-je faite si je ne m’avois pas cru plus fort que je ne
l’etois en effet.” A singular admission, especially for one not apt to be
candid in acknowledging his errors.—V.H.
[181] [Lord Holland is probably mistaken as to the scene of this exploit.
An incident such as is described above certainly took place at the battle
of Lutzen: and the Emperor decorated Wilson with the cross of the Order
of St. George, taken from his own neck, at a review some three weeks
later.]
[182] [William, Prince of Orange, had fled to England in 1795, after the
occupation of Amsterdam by General Pichegru. A Republican Government
was then established until 1806, when Napoleon forced his brother Louis
on the unwilling people as their King. In 1814 the tide turned against
France (Holland had been annexed by that country in 1813), and the Dutch
rose in revolt. The Prince of Orange was recalled, and was proclaimed
King of Holland and Belgium under the title of William I. The Monarchy
was made hereditary, and a Liberal Constitution was drawn up.]
[183] [Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838). He quarrelled
with Napoleon in 1808 when Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and after that
time sided secretly with the Bourbons, though he retained his office.]
[184] [Emmerich-Joseph de Worms, Duc de Dalberg (1773-1833), a friend and
follower of Talleyrand.]
[185] [Lord Holland gives the same account of these intrigues in his
_Foreign Reminiscences_, p. 297. He there relates that the kind of token
sent to Metternich is uncertain. It was either the ring, a few words in
the Duc de Dalberg’s handwriting enclosed in a button, or a note in Lord
Castlereagh’s writing to the Princesse de Vaudemont, as a proof of his
being confidentially connected with Talleyrand. This latter story was
told him by Lord Goderich in 1833.]
[186] [Lord Holland somewhat minimises the popular desire, which,
according to other accounts, was manifested in the South for a
restoration of the Bourbons. The Duke of Wellington himself was certainly
in favour of the movement, though in conformity with instructions from
the English Government he refrained from any expression of his personal
views.]
[187] I had many of the facts, more in detail than here related, directly
from Mr. Gallois,* and indirectly from Dalberg himself; and they were
confirmed or corroborated by the concurrence of other accounts of the
less material facts from several others, and especially Pozzo di Borgo,†
whose interesting relation of these transactions I had heard before
I knew of Vitrolles’s intrigue, with which it was so far from being
inconsistent that it tallied exactly in one main particular, the surprise
of Alexander at finding no concerted plan for the Bourbons on his arrival
at Paris.—V.H.
[* Jean Antoine Gallois, French politician, and friend of Lord Holland.
He died in 1828.]
[† Count Pozzo di Borgo (1764-1842), diplomatist; afterwards Russian
Ambassador in England.]
[188] [Richard Westmacott, R.A. (1775-1856), the eminent sculptor.]
[189] [Lord Wellington received the news of the events in Paris on
the night of the 11th. The information was brought by Colonel Cooke,
accompanied by a French officer, who had orders to communicate with the
Marshals.]
[190] [Briefly, the situation was as follows. After the attack of the
Allies on Paris of March 30, Marmont, who was in command of the French
forces, capitulated; and the populace, without Napoleon to lead them,
acquiesced. A provisional Government was proclaimed under the leadership
of Talleyrand; the Emperor was dethroned on April 2; and Louis XVIII. was
made king. In the meanwhile Napoleon himself remained at Fontainebleau.
The army was on his side, but the Marshals were tired of the unequal
combat, and forced him to abdicate in favour of his infant son. This
proposal was refused by the Allies, and under pressure he signed an
unconditional surrender on April 6.]
[191] Still a hotel in 1825 and formerly a house of Lord Monson’s. The
Houses of York, Stuart, and Bourbon all adopted white as their emblems
and divine hereditary right to the government of their fellow creatures
as their fundamental maxim.* Even English soldiers were permitted to wear
it, a circumstance which provoked the following epigram from the pen of
Mr. Rogers:
Wear it awhile, against him led,
With your own blood you’ll dye it red.
But had your brave forefathers worn it,
Great Nassau from their brows had torn it.—V.H.
[* It is a moot point whether divine right can be said to date back
in practice to the Wars of the Roses; though, in theory, Sir Robert
Filmer (1604-1653), a writer well known for his extreme opinions on this
subject, held that the doctrine commenced with the creation of man.]
[192] Napoleon inserted this just remark afterwards in one of his
proclamations, and felt perhaps a malicious pleasure in using the sarcasm
of Talleyrand against that party to whom he had contributed to betray
him.—V.H.
[193] [The Slave Trade was the subject of a special clause in the Treaty,
which, however, did not go as far as the enthusiasts on the subject
had hoped. The French King engaged himself to combine with the King
of England, at a future Congress, for general abolition; and in the
meanwhile consented that the trade should cease in French possessions
within five years. Lord Liverpool even offered, at the Congress of
Vienna, to cede the Island of Trinidad as compensation for the French
colonists who believed they would be utterly ruined by an immediate
cessation of the trade.]
[194] [Wilberforce and his party.]
[195] I think, on reflection, the King of Prussia only was there that
day.—V.H.
[Creevey says of this, in a letter dated June 21 (_Creevey Papers_,
vol. i. p. 197): “I hope you admired our little brush last night in the
presence of all the foreign grandees except the Emperor.”
(The Opposition, knowing that the distinguished visitors were present,
moved a resolution concerning the marriage of Princess Charlotte to the
Hereditary Prince of Orange.).]
[196] [William, Prince of Orange (1792-1849), son of William I. of
Holland. He was educated in England by Dr. Howley, afterwards Archbishop
of Canterbury, and succeeded to the throne of Holland after his father’s
abdication in 1840. Huish, in his _Memoirs of George IV._ (vol. ii. p.
184), gives the translation of a passage in a German book, published at
Leipsic, entitled, _The History of the Most Extraordinary Events of the
European Courts in the Years 1813-1815_. This entirely bears out Lord
Holland’s statement; though, conversely, the book may be the source of
his information. The Duchess of Oldenburg is mentioned as having been
specially sent over to intrigue against the marriage.]
[197] [The bag containing the documents and papers representing the case
against Queen Caroline in 1820, which was laid on the table of the House
of Lords.]
[198] With whom that scheme originated I cannot positively say; but the
Duke and Duchess of York and Lord Anglesey had some hand in promoting
it.—V.H.
[199] Of Wales.—V.H.
[200] Lady Jersey gave me the copy of this letter.—V.H.
[201] [The usual scandal was raked up this year by the fact of two
Drawing-rooms taking place, which were held by the Queen in honour of the
Royal visitors. The Princess signified her intention of being present,
but received a notice from the Queen that it was impossible to give her
leave to do so, owing to the declaration of the Prince Regent that he
would not meet his wife on any occasion either public or private.]
[202] [An interesting account of the Princess’s flight is given in
_Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville_. His authority is Madame de
Flahault, who was actually at Warwick House at the time. The Princess was
much perturbed at the news of the Regent’s immediate arrival, but the
first intimation of her departure was ten minutes later, when Madame de
Flahault, while changing her gown, heard a workman in the street exclaim,
“Why, surely, that’s the Princess running down the street.” The Regent,
on his arrival, was furious at her disappearance, and sent Madame de
Flahault and the Bishop of Salisbury in search of the fugitive. They
found her at Connaught Place; but her mother only arrived later from
Blackheath, in response to an urgent message from her daughter. Madame de
Flahault stated that the Princess’s return was mainly due to the advice
of the Duke of York.]
[203] [Published under the name of _Foreign Reminiscences_, by Henry
Edward, Lord Holland, in 1852.]
[204] [Termed _Miscellaneous Reminiscences_. See p. 307.]
[205] [General Charles Richard Fox, who married, in 1824, Lady Mary
FitzClarence, second daughter of William IV. and Mrs. Jordan.]
[206] How shortsighted are predictions! In three months or less after
writing this, I was invited by Lord Grey to a seat in the Cabinet,
and though, from considerations of health, I declined any more active
employment, I accepted the seals of the Duchy of Lancaster, an office
which brings me in constant and private intercourse with the King, and
which, under so direct and honourable a Prince as William IV., is a
pleasant and easy, as well as an honourable, occupation.—V.H.
[207] [See _ante_, p. 188. The statement, however, that Alexander would
have been otherwise unable to reach Paris seems an extreme view of the
case. The Allies had won their way to the capital by force of arms,
and whatever decision had been arrived at with regard to the future
government of France, they would have been obliged to occupy the city.
The failure of the Congress of Chatillon was primarily due, not to the
intrigues of the Bourbons, but to the unwillingness of Napoleon to seize
the opportunity of making peace.]
[208] [Fouché was made Minister of Police in 1800, and later Minister
of the Interior. By siding with all parties of the State as suited
the moment, he continued in power at intervals under both Empire and
Monarchy, until finally exiled as one of the instigators of the death of
Louis XVI.
This advice from the Duke is corroborated by a letter published by Sir
Herbert Maxwell in his _Life of Wellington_, vol. ii. p. 100.]
[209] [Sir Herbert Maxwell relates that Louis noticed the rudeness of
Napoleon’s generals who had become Royalists, and mentioned it to the
Duke. His only answer was, “Sire, ils sont si accoutumés à me tourner le
dos, qu’ils n’en ont encore perdu l’habitude.”]
[210] Lord Ossory, in his commonplace, recording the circumstances of his
death, thus characterises his neighbour:
“July 6, 1815, was the melancholy termination of the active and useful
(in many respects) life of poor Whitbread. He was a most indefatigable
man, of eminent talents and many virtues. He had a great irritability
of temper, which at last, combined with a natural fulness of blood in
the head, produced the fatal catastrophe. Contradiction made him become
a vehement advocate for Bonaparte. Bedfordshire used to be called
Whitbreadshire, but I deny that he ever governed or ruled me.”—V.H.
[211] [Mr. Robinson’s bill permitting importation when wheat touched
80_s._ a quarter.]
[212] [Lord Grey’s motion was as follows: “To institute a further inquiry
relative to the state of the growth, commerce, and consumption of grain,
and the state of the laws relating thereto.” He was supported by Lord
Grenville and others; but the majority of the House was opposed to the
motion, which was defeated by 124 votes to 18.]
[213] [Concluded with foreign Powers, and dealing with the settlement of
France.]
[214] Many of them had been ceded by treaty to France, and either some
other article in that treaty or the peace itself which it established had
been in reason and public law an equivalent stipulation in favour of the
party who ceded them. They were resumed or rather taken by force from the
French, after a capitulation or treaty in which there was no stipulation
whatever for their restoration.—V.H.
[215] [It is only fair to the Duke to state that from other contemporary
records he seems to have endeavoured to restrain the Allies from overdue
harshness in their treatment of Paris. The preservation of the _Pont de
Jéna_ from the destructive intentions of Blucher was chiefly owing to his
representations.]
[216] He indulged in vulgar abuse of those he had conquered and in sundry
other bad habits so much, when Ambassador in 1814, that the punster at
Paris called him, “My Lord _Vilain ton_.”—V.H.
[217] [The Duke certainly had no high opinion of Lowe. Compare a
conversation of the Duke and Mr. Creevey on this subject, _Creevey
Papers_, vol. i. 289.]
[218] At least, so the Black Prince and the English termed him. The
French did not, nor did they so consider Napoleon, whom they had chosen
Consul and Emperor.—V.H.
[219] [Lord Holland says in his _Foreign Reminiscences_ (p. 194) that
this question was actually discussed at the Congress of Vienna. He
mentions that his authority was an Englishman of veracity, employed at
the Congress, who told it him before the Battle of Waterloo.
Talleyrand must certainly have raised the point at the Congress, as his
instructions were to make strenuous efforts to obtain the removal of
Napoleon from an island in such close proximity to the shores of France.
The Azores or St. Helena were considered more suitable for insuring the
safety of Europe.]