LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

The Creevey Papers
Lord Erskine to Thomas Creevey, 10 January 1811

Vol. I. Contents
Ch. I: 1793-1804
Ch. II: 1805
Ch. III: 1805
Ch. IV: 1806-08
Ch. V: 1809
Ch. VI: 1810
Ch. VII: 1811
Ch. VIII: 1812
Ch. IX: 1813-14
Ch X: 1814-15
Ch XI: 1815-16
Ch XII: 1817-18
Ch XIII: 1819-20
Vol. II. Contents
Ch I: 1821
Ch. II: 1822
Ch. III: 1823-24
Ch. IV: 1825-26
Ch. V: 1827
Ch. VI: 1827-28
Ch. VII: 1828
Ch. VIII: 1829
Ch. IX: 1830-31
Ch. X: 1832-33
Ch. XI: 1833
Ch. XII: 1834
Ch XIII: 1835-36
Ch XIV: 1837-38
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
“Reigate, Jany. 10, 1811.
“Dear Creevey,

“I send you the Act which you thought never could have passed. . . . Lord Eldon told me he never had heard of it and expressed his astonishment. He said that those gentlemen who had served the King as foreign ministers at a period when the King had a power by law to remunerate their services by a pension, if he chose to grant it, had as good a right to it as he—the C[hancellor]—had to his estate; and of that there can be no doubt.

“I observe Bankes has given notice to revive his Committee [on Public Expenditure]. I have seen him, and he seems to justify his resolution; but surely Martin and you, as lawyers, will not mix yourselves as the author of the first ex post facto law, touching the rights of subjects, that has ever passed. . . . I really think that some step should be taken by those who, as the friends of reform, ought to take care that it does not become odious.

Bankes says the act is Perceval’s, but I have good authority for believing that Perceval would not justify the ex post facto clause.

“Yours very sincerely,