LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

The Creevey Papers
Ch. VI: 1827-28

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
( 135 )

The fusion of a section of the Whigs with the Canningite Ministry wrought confusion in the groups composing both the original parties. The Old Tories, headed by Eldon, Londonderry, and the Duke of Rutland, stood disdainfully aloof, waiting an opportunity for effective flank attack. The Duke of Wellington, hitherto closely identified with that section of the Ministerialists, had resumed his old post at the Horse Guards, after laboriously explaining that his quarrel with Canning had not been the cause of his resignation of his military command, and that his resumption of the same was not in consequence of Canning’s death. But there was no whisper of his re-entering the Cabinet under Goderich, whom all men regarded as a minister pour rire; everything pointed to a political rapprochement (there is no equivalent English term) between Wellington and Grey. Meanwhile, if the ranks of the Tories were seamed by dissension, not less estranged were the Whigs among themselves. The “Malignants,” few in number, held apart with Lord Grey. They were drawn from every section of the old Opposition—that haughty old Whig, Earl Fitzwilliam, stood shoulder to shoulder with Thomas
Creevey, representative of the extinct “Mountain” of the Regency days. Nothing could exceed the bitterness which had sprung up between these Malignants and the rest of their party, nor the violence with which among themselves they denounced their ancient colleagues, whether those who had already accepted office, like Lord Lansdowne, or those who openly coveted office, like Lord Holland, or those who were suspected of secretly intriguing for office, like Henry Brougham. So intense was party feeling that it strained, and in many cases severed, friendships of long standing. Creevey never had a heartier ally than Lord Sefton; from the day, five and twenty years before, that he first entered Parliament as an obscure individual known to nobody, Sefton had befriended him, co-operated with him on the “Mountain,” and caused him to regard Croxteth, Stoke, and Arlington Street as always open to him. Sefton had given his adhesion to the Coalition Cabinet; this was enough to fire Creevey’s indignation, and there ensued some months of estrangement in consequence. That, however, was soon put right by the warm-hearted Sefton who would suffer no difference of opinion on public affairs to poison the springs of private friendship. He insisted upon Creevey returning to Croxteth, and crushed out all suspicion by his irresistible good humour.

It was very different with Brougham. Closely as Creevey had been associated with him in the past and profoundly as he admired his talents, it is clear that Brougham never succeeded in winning his confidence. He exhausts his vocabulary of vituperation—a pretty extensive one—in denouncing him at this crisis.

1827-28.] RETURN TO CROXTETH. 137
Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Croxteth, Wed., Nov. 21, 1827.
“My dearest Bessy,

“Well, here you see me after all, and everything as right as ever it can be. I arrived here in a chay from Ormskirk yesterday between one and two, and as I pass’d the front of the house, was upon the lookout to see if there were any watchers at the windows. Lady Maria was at her bedroom one, and we had mutual salutations. Where my Lord had seen me from I don’t know, but he was below at the hall door to receive me, and in the middle of very cordial handshaking said:—‘You old rogue! I did not feel sure of your coming till I saw you.’ I was then taken up to see the ladies, and nothing could be warmer than my reception was by each, and Lady Louisa said more than once or twice during the day—‘You don’t know how happy you have made us all by coming.’ So it’s all mighty well.

“As we were sitting cozing about the fire, Sefton said:—‘Well, Brougham is very angry with you for not coming to see him at Brougham.—‘O,’ said I, ‘he is a neat artist. The affectionate, tender-hearted creature wrote a blubbering letter to Lord Darlington, saying how deeply hurt he was that such an old and attached friend as I was should have been so near him and never come to see him; but,’ I added, ‘he never mentioned that he was not at home if I had done so.’ . . . A little after, one of the young ladies said—‘We have seen a good deal of Mr. Brougham lately; he went to the play with us 3 or 4 times, and you never saw such a figure as he was. He wears a black stock or collar, and it is so wide that you see a dirty coloured handkerchief under, tied tight round his neck. You never saw such an object, or anything half so dirty.’ This is all that has passed hitherto respecting the Arch Fiend. . . .

“I said to Sefton just now out a-shooting—who is Montron?—‘Why,’ said he, ‘he is a roué who has no visible living and has one of the best houses going in Paris. He was employed very much by Talleyrand in his jobs and by Buonaparte likewise, and of course
he is in very bad odour with the present Government of France; but he is a clever man and most entertaining.’ I need not add he must be an infernal scoundrel, and to my mind he is the worst mannered man I ever saw. . . . We are expecting hourly a proper match for him in villainy, Henry de R——. . . . He [Montron] is known to and has lived with all the world, but his polar star has been, and continues to be, Talleyrand. He married a Duchesse de Fleury, who was divorced from her husband on purpose; but who afterwards left him to live with a painter. One of his most conspicuous stations was in the Court of the
Princess Borghese, where he lived openly with her principal lady. I never heard anything equal to the depravity of Madame la Princesse, according to the stories Montron tells Sefton, and Montron stated himself as having been the minister to her pleasures in selecting lovers for her. It was for such like offices that the moralist Buonaparte whipped Master Montron into prison one fine day, and kept him there, saying he would put an end to the debauchery of his sister’s establishment. So much for my new friend! Is he not a neat one? . . . I really think there is nothing going on by letter now between Sefton and Brougham, which is odd enough, after all that has passed; but I feel certain Sefton would not conceal anything that was going on, and if he ever mentions Brougham, it is only to say how impossible it is for me to conceive the state of his filth in all ways. . . . Poor Sefton! he was quite au desespoir the night before last; there had been so few pheasants that day at Kirby Ruff, his best cover. He was really speechless, except when he said it was the last time he ever should be there. In short, he might have lost half his estate at least. To think of the most successful man in life, and with the outside of everything the world can give, and he can’t exist without excitement for every moment of the day; whilst a pauper like myself can live upon idleness and jokes, without a blank day to annoy me. . . .”

“Croxteth, Dec. 6th, 1827.

“. . . I accompanied the shooters yesterday to their ground, about 7 miles off. The day was splendid
1827-28.]RUMOURS OF WAR.139
—the sport brilliant—
Sefton, his 3 sons, Berkeley Craven and Mr. McKenzie killing 141 pheasants, above 100 hares, &c., &c. On coming home the night was so dark that my lord declared he could not see the road; and so it turned out, for he overturned us. . . . We were not a mile from home, so we left the carriage and groped our way on foot. . . .”

Earl Grey to Mr. Creevey.
“Howick, Dec. 13, 1827.
“My dear Creevey,

“. . . Sefton’s conduct can only be explained on the supposition that he feels himself bound not to abandon, in their difficulties, an administration which he originally promised to support; but I do not think this feeling can prevail long against his own opinion and the increasing opinion of the publick. At present, according to all appearances, they will not be able to extricate themselves from this Turkish scrape. I have a letter to-day from Paris saying that the Russian army has crossed the Pruth, with the intention of permanently occupying the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. This, in their diplomatick jargon, they say is not to be considered—any more than Navarin—as a measure of war, but as a moyen d’ exécuter le traité de médiation. This is not very unlike the case of a man who should knock another down, and then say—‘I did not do it with an intention of hurting you, but only from the most friendly desire to keep you quiet.’ Whatever the explanation may be worth, of the fact I have no doubt, and as little that the Russians will not again abandon the possession of these countries. These [illegible], notwithstanding the gloss which it is endeavoured to put upon the measure, as well as a general apprehension of the increasing power of Russia, which has been quickened by her late successes in Persia, have already produced speculations on the necessity of a combination to resist her projects, and there seems no great improbability in supposing that the cannon fired at Navarin may prove the signal of another general war in Europe. The best chances against it are to be found in the general poverty of
all the Great Powers. Austria can hardly find the means of moving an army; we are no longer in a condition to give subsidies; and even Russia, in the countries in which her armies will have to act, could not find immediately the means of defraying the cost of their maintenance in active service, and some compromise may thus be produced at the expense of the poor Turks who will be plundered both by friends and foes, and whose helpless imbecillity deprives them of all hopes of a successful resistance. This is the only way which I can at present foresee for the Ministers to escape from the difficulty which
Mr. Canning’s much-lauded policy has brought upon them, but which would require more energy, more skill, more union and more wisdom than I think likely to be found in our present Councils.

“As to Brougham—I believe him to be mad. Our correspondence has ceased, but I have lately seen, under his own hand, things that would surprise even you . . . that Canning had no more to do with the treaty of the 6th of July than you or I, and that it was entirely the Duke of Wellington’s . . . that there is a complaint of the King’s unconstitutional interference with the patronage of the Ministers. If this should be proved to be so (the if is good) nobody wd. be more for resisting it than himself; and, if requisite, he should be glad to see a union of the respectable men of all parties, headed by Lord Grey, for that purpose. . . . All this I have seen actually in black and white—does it furnish a case to justify my suspicion of madness?

“At the end comes out the true solution of the riddle. He is full of indignation at Phillimore’s being put over Lushington’s head, because the latter was counsel for the Queen. No thought of himself, of course! nor any reference to his own situation, proving indisputably his claim to the acknowledgment of disinterestedness, which you may remember in his letter to me. . . . The Duchess of Northumberland told Mrs. Grey the other day that about Navarin the King had said that the actor deserved a ribband, but the act a halter. A pleasant distinction for his My.’s Ministers! Lansdowne, however, I hear is in favour ever since he submitted about Herries,
but that the King spoke neither to
Tierney nor to Mcintosh at the Council when the latter was sworn in.

“Ever yours,
“Howick, 15th Dec.

“. . . With the feelings of sincere regard and great liking that I have for Sefton, nothing can be more gratifying to me than the expression of corresponding feelings on his part: nor could anything give me more sincere pleasure than a visit from him here, more especially if you could meet him. Is there any chance of your coming? . . . You will see in the papers the reports of Lord Goodrich’s resignation. . . . Will the King put the thing fairly into the hands of Lansdowne, allowing him to bring in some of the old Whigs? or will he take it as the head of a Tory administration? Or will Huskisson be the man, with all the load of unpopularity which weighs upon him? or will the whole concern break up, and Peel and the Beau be called upon to form a new Government? . . . Holland is the only person of whom I have heard that goes the whole length of defending the business of Navarin in all its parts, and that with a degree of violence that really surprises me. I can only consider him, therefore, as prepared to take anything or do anything to support the Government as it is. . . . I had heard of Dudley’s love, and of the Countess St. Antonio’s joke that he was become ‘a Ward in Chancery.’ If the lady takes as much out of him as the Court usually does out of its suitors, I should think there would be little left of him at the meeting of Parliament.”

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Liverpool, Dec. 14, 1827.

“I left Croxteth yesterday. . . . Sefton first gave me your letter, but his main object [in coming to my room] was to show me in the most perfect confidence a letter he received from Brougham this morning, enclosing one the latter had received from Lambton at

* The Earl of Dudley’s family name being Ward.

Paris, and as Sefton said when I had seen both letters, it would be for me to decide which was the greatest madman. The subject was
Lambton’s peerage, which he (Lambton) contends should not be a simple barony, very properly observing that it is no promotion for the first commoner of England to be made the last baron! But, in short, without seeing his letter with one’s own eyes, its contents would be perfectly incredible, and the result is his calling upon Brougham by all those ties of early disinterested friendship, which have bound them to each other for life, not to let him be less than an earl. . . . Brougham states in reply, or says he does so, that our friends in power are so jealous of any approach to them, that it is quite impossible to assist him; and then, in his comment upon Lambton’s letter, loads him with every species of ridicule for his pretensions; till at length he gravely enters the field himself as a man of family at least two centuries older than that of Lambton, and as having the 2nd barony of England in his (Brougham’s) own blood. Now really! was there ever? . . . Punch* writes there is not an individual in the city who does not consider our attack upon the Turkish fleet [at Navarino] as the greatest outrage ever committed by any Government or country, and above all—by ours. In speaking of Lord Goodrich he says he is considered by all as a mere nullity, and by no one more so than the King, and does whatever he likes and cares for no one. Pretty well this from Mr. Clerk of the Council, is it not?

“Before these letters came Sefton had said to me:—‘By God! the Government can never stand; this Navarino business must destroy them.’ . . . Only think of there not being a syllable of politicks in Brougham’s letter to him yesterday! I saw it all. My own belief is that Brougham is not the person to whom Sefton has bound himself, if in some unguarded moment he has done so; but I suspect it is Petty. He always speaks of Brougham as if he loathed him. My dispatch to Grey contains all the matter just stated, except about the Brougham and Lambton correspondence. . . .”

* Charles Greville.

1827-28.] SEFTON AND BROUGHAM. 143
“Croxteth, Dec. 16.

“Well, the Pet* was charmed that the rain had not stopt me, and so were the ladies, and all mightily pleased at breakfast with my description of Miss Creevey’s drum† and supper. I did the company by helping them to stuffing out of the hare, to make up for the little I could get from the hare itself. Then the day became quite fine and all was to be ready for shooting in half an hour. In a turn or two I had with Sefton on the terrace he said:—‘Well, I have written to Brougham by this post and have said to him—“I observe you never mention any politicks in your letter of yesterday; from which I conclude, of course, you are ashamed to advert to our late nefarious attack upon the Turks. For myself I can fairly say I have gone as far as any man in my endeavours to prevent the return of the Tories to power; but if I am expected to support the infernal outrage at Navarino, it is too high a price to pay for accomplishing my object, and I think it right to declare I will not do it. And now, as you have hitherto given me an explicit account of the part you meant to take when the Government was about to submit my measure to Parliament, I beg you will be as frank with me upon this occasion as I have been with you.”’ . . . Sefton is to send me his answer, which one should think must be a dokiment of some interest.

“Well but—to wind up my intercourse with the Pet: when the carriages were ready for the shooters in the stable yard, where they always embark, I went to be present on the occasion, and when Sefton came, who was the last, he said:—‘Creevey, I want to speak to you;’ and taking me into the Riding House he said:—‘I can’t let you go without telling you that McKenzie has proposed to Maria. It has happened just now.’ I said I had seen quite enough to be sure it would come to that and added:—‘He is a man of fortune, is he not?’—‘I fancy so,’ said Sefton, ‘but I know nothing about it. He seems a damned good

* Lord Sefton.

Mr. Creevey had been the night before to a party at his sister’s house in Liverpool, and driven out to Croxteth to breakfast.

kind of fellow and a particular friend of [illegible].’ This was all, but it was quite enough to show it would do.” . . .”

During the Cabinet crisis in January, 1828, following on Lord Goderich’s resignation, Creevey was staying with his step-daughters in Essex, but was kept closely informed by Lord Sefton of every shifting phase of gossip. The letters were written daily, sometimes twice or thrice a day, but the interest of them has for the most part evaporated. The question of greatest moment to the Whigs was whether Huskisson would join the Duke of Wellington’s Cabinet.

Earl of Sefton to Mr. Creevey.
“Brooks’s, 12th Jany., 1828.

“. . . Sir Chas. Stuart is talked of for Foreign Secretary. Petty† may now retire and enjoy his charades at Bowood in quiet. He is admitted by common consent to be the damnedest idiot that ever lived, not even excepting the domestic Goderich.”

Earl Grey to Mr. Creevey.
“Berkeley Sq., Jany. 25, 1828.

“. . . I have not time, nor, indeed, do I know enough, to say much of the present posture of affairs. To me it seems that the Beau, as you call him, is placing himself in a situation of dreadful responsibility and danger. His taking the office of Minister, after all that passed on that subject last year, to say nothing of other objections, would, in my opinion, be a most fatal mistake, and I still hope there may be time, and that he may find friends to advise him to avoid it. But there is another danger which presses still more strongly on my-mind. Huskisson’s friends boast

* The marriage never took place. Lady Maria Molyneux died unmarried in 1872.

Lord Lansdowne.

everywhere that Corn Laws, Free Trade, Portugal, Navarino—in short everything—have been conceded to him as the price of his accession to the Government. The Duke, I know, tells a different story; but this proves that these matters are not distinctly understood and settled as they ought to be for the security of the new Government. The consequence is that it is left in the power of that rogue Huskisson to choose his own time and ground for a quarrel, if he shd. find it his interest to break up the Administration.

“No communication or proposition of any kind has been made to me. I hear our old friends are eager for red-hot opposition; but I certainly shall remain in my old position, and act as I may find right, without any consideration of either party. . . .

“Ever yours,

Brougham’s position at this time was a puzzle alike to his political friends and foes. In the previous August he had written to Lord Grey, submitting that Canning’s death had removed the last obstacle to prevent Grey supporting Lord Goderich’s administration, informing him that he, Brougham, had, within the preceding six weeks, refused “the most easy and secure income for life of £7000 or £8000 a year, and high rank, which I could not take without leaving my friends in the House of Commons exposed to the leaders of different parties.” He claimed, therefore, to have proved that he was acting “without the slightest tincture of interest.” “I have agreed,” he says, “to support the leader of the House of Commons, whoever he may be. . . . As for my real individual interest, I believe no one can doubt that it is clearly my game to see a weak Government, with only Peel (whom I never found very invincible), and myself at the head of the Liberal party.” Reading between the lines of this strange letter, it is easy to see why
Brougham was so tender towards the men in office. Had they been turned out and a purely Liberal administration been formed, he knew it was hopeless for him to look for political office so long as
George IV. was king. Brougham had offended too deeply for that in Queen Caroline’s trial. Grey, who had deeply disapproved of the coalition under Canning, merely replied that “at present all reasonable grounds for confidence on which I could give any assurance of general support [to the Government] appear to me as much wanting as ever. I must remain, therefore, in the same position, supporting such measures as are consistent with my principles, and opposing, without any inducement to forbearance, whatever may appear to militate against them.” To Creevey, Brougham continued to write in a strain of greater levity than he adopted towards Lord Grey.

Henry Brougham, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“[January] 1828.

“. . . Don’t be alarmed, but endeavour to receive with equanimity, and if possible with fortitude, the painful intelligence that your beloved Sovereign has been most dangerously ill, and is still in a very precarious state. He lost in all 120 ounces of the blood-Royal in the course of about ten days. The complaint was inflammation, I suppose of the bladder, for they say it was owing to some illness of the prostate gland. I am told he is very far indeed from rallying as he used to do when bled formerly, and that all the loyal subjects near his person are in much consternation.

“The Parlt. is likely to open in a very ‘unsatisfactory’ state—as our friend Castlereagh (God rest his soul) was wont to say. The chief ‘feature’—I mean Peel—will find it quite impossible to calculate on a majority on any one question, except perhaps a motion for turning them out or reforming the Parlt.; and how
he is even to get thro’ the forms of a debate, if he is opposed by all the parties not in office, seems inconceivable, for even
Vesey is not there, being laid on the shelf for some months. The Ultras are in great force, and the Huskissons full of faction. As a proof of the kind of steps the Tories are taking, I may say that your friend Lord Lonsdale has, in a letter which I have a copy of, been encouraging the Cumberland county meeting, advising them to lay the state of distress before Parlt., because the Beau desires it; and adding that they should not point out any remedies, but only ascribe it to the burthens upon agricultural produce and the reduced currency. . . . Lonsdale then seems to have thought that it might be said—‘How happens your son Billy to be in office while you are thus mischievously embarrassing H.M. Government?’ so he adds, awkwardly enough, that he is convinced Lord Lowther’s first consideration is the interest of the country, and that he never would keep office if he thought, &c., &c., &c.

“I find that the worthy Laureate, Southey, is to move or second the resoln. that the distress is within the power of the Legislature; and a cousin of the family (H. Lowther), who holds one of their livings, is to move another. Meanwhile, the Beau stands firm and says ‘he will keep his position;’ meaning, of course, without any change. But unfortunately it is Peel whose position will be to keep; so then, they say, the Beau adds—‘he shall bring forward measures, and if the Parlt. won’t support him, he can’t help it.’ His strength is no doubt in the Ultras, whom no one can wish well to, and the Huskissons, whom few will trust, after what happened two years ago. But this feeling won’t carry the said Beau thro everything, and I am quite confident he reckons without his host if he counts on it to the extent I hear.”

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Whitehall, Feby. 5, 1828.

“. . . We had Lord Durham (who stood my observations on his being grown taller very affably),* Sydney

* Mr. Lambton had been created Baron Durham on 29th January.

Smith, Bob Adair, Lord Robert Spencer and Ferguson at dinner. . . . There is no end to the disasters of the Whigs. Poor Jim Abercromby and the fair Mary Anne* give out that they leave town for ever and ever next Easter, and fall back upon a little farm in Derbyshire; but no longer to superintend the dear, deaf Dick-aky Duke’s property, for that appointment was given to another when Jim was dubbed a Privy Councillor, it being too infra dig. to be a Right Honorable Bailiff! and about £2000 a year more derived from law sources were sacrificed for ever in like manner as being inconsistent with his rank. Scarlett, too, is said to be perfectly speechless, except when he tells that being deprived of the power of returning to the circuit is a clear loss to him of £5000 a year. . . . When Mrs. Taylor and I were left alone about one this morning, she said:—‘As I know, Mr. Creevey, I may trust you with anything, I must tell you poor Mr. Denison is broken-hearted about his sister Lady Conyngham; and his only relief, he says, is imparting his grief to me.’ According to his own account, he protested to her from the first against her living under the King’s roof; but that the thing, instead of getting better, has become daily worse and worse. Not that even now he can suppose there is anything criminal between persons of their age, but that he never goes into society without hearing allusions too plain to be misunderstood; and he lives in daily fear and expectation of the subject coming before Parliament. In short, such is his feeling that he has called formally upon his sister to leave her fat and fair friend and to go abroad. He has been backed in this application both by Lord Mountcharles† and Lady Strathaven, and he has told her his will is to be altered immediately if she holds on; but she treats all such interference only with bursts of passion and defiance, always relying upon Lady Hertford’s case as her precedent and justification. . . .”

* Third son of General Sir Ralph Abercromby. He was Speaker from 1835 to 1839, and his wife was Marianne Leigh, daughter of Egerton Leigh of the West Hall, Cheshire.

Lady Conyngham’s eldest surviving son.

1827-28.] A QUARREL. 149

In the beginning of 1828 the quarrel of the Malignants with Brougham passed into a sharper phase, and occupies a great space in Creevey’s correspondence at that period. It would be wearisome to follow the matter in anything like detail; suffice it to explain that Brougham had circulated a report that, at Doncaster races, Lord Grey had explained to Lord Cleveland (Darlington) the reason for his refusing to support Canning’s ministry, namely, “that it leaned too much to the people and against the aristocracy.” In an evil moment for peace, Brougham imparted this information to Creevey, reckoning, perhaps, on Creevey’s ancient impatience with Grey for acting as a drag on the wheels of progress. But by this time Grey had become the idol of Creevey, who promptly remonstrated with his lordship on the imprudence of his sentiments as reported by Brougham. Grey indignantly denied having made any such statement to Cleveland, and received that gentleman’s denial of having had any communication with Brougham on the subject. Cleveland also forwarded to Grey an explanatory letter from Brougham, which, to judge from the force of language it elicited from Creevey, scarcely served to re-establish matters on a better basis.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Whitehall, Feb. 15, 1828.

“. . . This composition of Brougham’s is a letter to Lord Cleveland written, of course, at Cleveland House and of four sides’ length. No one who has not seen it can conceive its low, lying, dirty, shuffling villainy. However, with all his manoeuvres, he can’t escape the charge, and he states in his own words, rather at more length and in stronger terms, exactly the same substance of the conversation between Lord
Cleveland and
Grey as having passed at Doncaster, that he stated to me. Then he attempts to make out that the words are vague and may not warrant the construction put upon them, and the Lord knows what besides. He goes into fresh lies as to his uniform support of Grey’s character, and how he silenced three London channels of abuse of him, and was only too late by half an hour in not stopping the hostile article in the Edinburgh Review, and concludes with a warning against mischievous tale-bearers, who, for their own purposes, would make mischief between Grey and him.

Grey’s answer to Lord Cleveland is that he is anything but satisfied with his lordship’s letter; that Brougham’s letter is conclusive proof of the truth of the injurious statement he has made respecting his [Grey’s] conversation at Doncaster; and as his lordship had admitted in conversation at Cleveland House that there never was the least foundation for such allegation, he claims in justice to have the same admission under his lordship’s hand. This brought another letter from our Niffy-Naffy marquis, in terms as explicit as could possibly be selected, stating the pleasure he had in complying with Lord Grey’s request, and declaring unequivocally that no such conversation as that alleged to have passed at Doncaster between him and Lord Grey, or anything approaching to it, had ever taken place; and he concludes by expressing his regret that any misunderstanding should take place between Brougham and Lord Grey, and with an offer of his services—tho’ unauthorised by Brougham—to bring about their reconciliation. To this Grey returns a civil answer, stating the relief it is to his mind to have this unequivocal denial of the injurious statement circulated by Brougham having any foundation in fact; but that, with respect to Brougham, until he shall make the same unequivocal denial of the circulation of the injurious statement, and say that it is entirely destitute of truth, all confidential intercourse between them must be suspended. And so the thing ends, and a charming mess it is for the arch-fiend—Lady Jersey, the Duke of Bedford, &c., having already copies [of the correspondence]. Grey . . . says Rosslyn made him much milder in his expressions than he wished.”

“6th Feby.

“. . . After our dinner at Fergy’s, Lord Sefton made me go with him to the opera . . . . From the Opera House we went to Crockford’s new concern, which is magnificent and perfect in taste and beauty. For a suite of rooms, it is the greatest lion in England, and is said by those who know the palace at Versailles to be even more magnificent than that. . . . After breakfast this morning I sallied forth to see the alterations in St. James’s Park, and they are really great improvements, but the new palace* still remains the devil’s own. . . . Grey is quite satisfied with the Beau, and says he will do capitally in the Lords as Minister.”


“. . . In the course of my political jaw with Grey I said that, altho’ I never expected the Beau to apply to him for assistance in the formation of his Cabinet, yet I did expect after all their friendly intercourse, and after all Lord Grey’s essential service, he would have communicated to him what was going on. He said very naturally that he did not think himself entitled to such communication, and proceeded to tell me what he did consider as meant from the Beau to him, and with which—little as it was—he seemed quite satisfied. It seems a letter came from the Beau to Lauderdale, directed to him at Howick, the Beau’s name being written in the corner, and this in the midst of the concern. When Grey forwarded it, he told Lauderdale it had been a severe trial to his virtue to resist opening it at such a time, so Lauderdale sent it back to him. Its contents were to tell him he had offered the Ordnance to Rosslyn, and to beg all Lauderdale’s influence with him to induce him to accept it and then he goes on to say he wishes his Government to be anything but an exclusive one, that his own wishes would make it even more comprehensive, but he finds considerable difficulties from preconceived prejudices. Grey is quite right, I have no doubt, in supposing the ‘comprehension’ meant him, but the poor fellow thinks the ‘preconceived prejudices’ were those of

* Buckingham Palace.

Peel and the Tories, whereas I cannot doubt their being the property of Prinney. However, as I said before, he seemed as pleased as Punch with everything, and particularly with his own conduct and situation; and so was she.”


“. . . Let me mention to you that the Tankervilles have a box at the French play, and that he and she have it the alternate weeks. Is not that the image of them both? . . . Taylor was with old Eldon at his house this morning about business, and Eldon told him he had been shamefully used upon the formation of the present Government—never consulted—nothing offered him! Was there ever? Eldon whining at his unhappy fate after all—and to Michael Angelo Taylor too! Oh dear, oh dear!”


“. . . I went to Brooks’s, and, upon entering the room, Bruffam was sitting at a table with his back to me, convulsing a group of noblemen and gentlemen who stood round with some good story. Not having seen him before, I took up a lateral position to him, with my eye fixed upon him, waiting for recognition; which was no sooner effected than up he sprung to embrace me with ‘Well, old ultra-Tory, how are you?’—‘Charmingly, I thank you, dear moderate Tory; how are you?’ . . .”

“Brooks’s, 12th.

“. . . Sefton is cracking his jokes to the right and left to a numerous audience, all at the expense of Huskisson and Dudley, as if he had not been their supporter for these six months past. I really can’t approve of him. Huskisson fell 50 per cent. in last night’s jaw, and the Beau gained a corresponding degree of elevation. In short the latter will do capitally: his frank, blunt and yet sensible manner will beat the shuffling, lying Huskisson and Brougham school out of the field. . . . My sincere opinion is—and I beg to record it thus early—that the Beau will do something for the Catholics of Ireland.”

1827-28.] RIVAL MARQUESSES. 153

“. . . I was well pleased with the hearty effusion of my ingenuous friend Sir Colin Campbell* yesterday, whom I met for the first time since his return from Ireland.—‘Well,’ says I, ‘Sir Colin, so we’ve got the Beau at the top of the tree at last.’—‘Yes, but sorely against his will. I can assure you, Mr. Creevey, he would much rather have remained at his own post as head of the Army; but, by God, sir! nobody else would take the office, and he could do no other than he did. But, sir, you may rely upon it, he’ll make an excellent minister. . . . I can assure you the old Tories are already frightened out of their senses of him.’ . . . In my way back from Lady Elizabeth Whitbread’s this morning I was stopt by Burdett, who got off his horse and would walk back with me across the Park, his object being to deplore the times. . . . With all his admiration of Brougham’s talents in publick and his social ones in private, his opinion was that the world would be benefited by his being out of it.”


“. . . The Beau has made Lady Grey’s brother an Irish bishop and Lord Rosslyn Lord Lieutenant of the county of Fife; which, as his two first acts, is not amiss, and quite enough, as Colin Campbell said, to frighten people out of their senses.”


“. . . Allow me to mention, en passant, that the Marquis of Cleveland remains in London over tomorrow for no other purpose than that of dining with the Duke Of Wellington. Now was there ever?—after all that passed last summer. The Marquis, however, has really struck, and keeps the patronage of the county versus Lord Londonderry!”


“. . . Lord Rosslyn told me last night that he would have taken the Army if the Beau had offered

* Not he who afterwards became Lord Clyde, but a namesake, who acted as brigade-major at the battle of Assaye, and throughout the first Marhatta campaign.

it to him, tho’ he had refused the Ordnance; but he supposed the Duke would not let it be in other hands than that of a subaltern of his own.”*


“. . . I met Lord Lansdowne in Oxford Street for the first time since his fall. His appearance alone was a sufficient disqualification of him for managing the affairs of the country in its present difficulties. His person was carefully protected by an umbrella, he being the only person in the street who had one up, and there not having been a single drop of rain the whole day. I congratulated him upon having no explanations to make in these explaining times, and I told him his first step had been the fatal one for him—that of submitting to the wretch Goodrich as his leader in the Lords.”


“. . . Dined at Lord Grey’s last night, where Lord Durham and Bob Adair were the only company. Lord Rosslyn and Lady Georgiana Bathurst came in the evening. Grey and my lady were both very much amused at my making Lord Durham tell who dined at Brougham’s Cabinet dinner last Sunday. Durham was one, and Sefton and the Duke of Leinster, Lord Stuart (Sir Charles that was), old Essex and four Scotch barristers. So much for a Cabinet dinner by a person who says he is at the head of 200 gentlemen of the House of Commons, and who could only muster one member of that body (Sefton) on this great occasion.”

“March 3rd.

“. . . I met Lauderdale, who made me go with him to his lodgings, where I was a full hour; but he splices so many subjects upon one another, it is difficult to make a selection. . . . He is of opinion that any minister or any King must be stark, staring mad that would trust Brougham for a minute. . . . I was in the ‘Nutshell’ at ½ past 7.† Robin Adair, young

* Lord Hill had been appointed Commander-in-Chief.

Lady Holland, from whom Creevey had long been alienated owing to the schism in the Opposition ranks, bad sent him a pressing

Lord William Russell, Charles Fox and myself, were the only additions to John Allen and my lord and my lady—the latter, of course, being handed down to dinner by Lord William. He planted himself by her side at the table, but she said:—‘No, Lord William, let Mr. Creevey come next to me: it is so long since I have seen him.’ Was there ever? . . .”


“. . . So you see Prinney crept into town at last on Monday night in the dark, when nobody could see his legs, or whether he could walk; but as there is a Council at St. James’s to-day we must hear something of him shortly. Lord Rosslyn is to be there to be sworn in as Lord Lieutenant of Fife, and he has promised me to keep a sharp look-out on the legs. . . . Here is an invitation for Sunday week from the Duke of Sussex, and Stephenson says, ‘Oh, you must come, because it is a dinner purposely for Lord Grey, and the 16 persons asked are selected as his tried friends, and the thing is meant as a marked compliment from the Duke to Lord Grey’ Now in the world, was there ever? Sussex being, or having been, quite as much for Canning as any of the other fools, rats and rogues. I find the Duke of Bedford, Jersey and old Fitzwilliam are of the elect, as well as Taylor and myself; but neither Sefton nor Brougham.”

“March 17, 1828.

“. . . Think of Grey telling me that yesterday morning he made his first appearance in a new ‘Wellington’ coat (a kind of a half-and-half great coat and undercoat, you know, meeting close and square below the knees), which was no sooner seen by Lady Grey and her daughters than it was instantly stormed and carried fairly and by main force from his back, never to see the light again—at least on his back.”


“. . . Sefton was very good fun about a morning call on Lady Holland. . . . Amongst other things she

invitation to dine with her in “her nut-shell,” a house in London where she was living during a temporary absence from Holland House.

* Buckingham Palace.

talked about ages, and observed that Lord Sefton and
Lord Holland were of the same age—about 56. ‘For myself,’ said she, ‘I believe I am near the same;’ and then the page being called, she said: ‘Go and ask Mr. Allen how old I am.’ As the house is so small and the rooms so near, they heard Allen holloa out in no very melodious tones—‘She is 57.’ But Lady Holland was not content with this, and said it was too old for her, and made the page go back again; and again they heard Allen roar in a much louder voice: ‘I tell you she’s 57.’ . . .”

“March 20th, 1828.

“. . . Nash or some of his crew waited upon Wellington the other day, stating the King’s pleasure to have a part of the new palace at Pimlico* pulled down and the plan altered; to which the Beau replied it was no business of his; they might pull down as much as they liked. But as this was not the answer that was wanted, he at last said:—‘If you expect me to put my hand to any additional expense, I’ll be damned if I will!’—Prinney is said to be furious about it . . . . Prinney said to the Duke of Leeds the other day:—‘Duke, you are one of the few people I can trust in times like these. Dine with me to-day at six.’ Which he did, and they both got so drunk as to be nearly speechless. . . . Mr. Bankes is to move tomorrow for a committee to enquire into the expense of public buildings, and the Government is to accede to the motion, which will of course bring Windsor and Pimlico palaces to view. Well may Prinney say as he does that ‘he sees distinctly we are going to have Charles 1st’s times again.’ . . . The Beau is rising most rapidly in the market as a practical man of business. All the deputations come away charmed with him. But woe be to them that are too late! He is punctual to a second himself, and waits for no man.”

“Brooks’s, March 26th.

“We have an event in our family. Fergy has got a regiment—a tip-top crack one—one of those beautiful Highland regiments that were at Brussels, Quatre-Bras

* Buckingham Palace.

and Waterloo. But his manner of getting it is still more flattering to him and honorable to
Lord Hill, backed, no doubt, as he must have been by the Beau. It has been the subject of a battle of ten days’ duration between the King and Lord Hill. The former proposed Lord Glenlyon, the Duke of Athol’s second son, married to the Duke of Northumberland’s sister, who has been in the King’s Household, and, as the King said, had his promise of this regiment (the 79th). On the other hand, the King has been known to say over and over again that Ferguson never should have a regiment in his lifetime—for various offences. He voted and spoke against the Duke of York; he went to Queen Caroline’s in regimentals; he moved for the Milan Commission, seconded by Mr. Creevey in a most indecent, intemperate speech, and was voted against by Tierney and all the Whigs as being much too bad; and yet little Hill has carried him thro’. . . . It is understood Lord Hill signified his intention of resigning if his recommendation was not acceded to. . . . I feel quite certain that Lady Conyngham’s sneers and Sir Henry Hardinge’s fears were all connected with this then pending battle.”

Earl of Sefton to Mr. Creevey.
“Newmarket, April 26th, 1828.

“The great fun of the week was the defeat of the Grosvenors, who all came from every part of the world to see Navarino win in a canter. He is the worst horse at Newmarket, and they have been deluded by their trainer Dilly, who made them believe he had beat Mameluke in a trial. Think of a man of £200,000 a year sending his horses to a notorious rascal who trains for Gully, Redesdale and Stuart! They make use of his horses for their betting.”

Earl Grey to Mr. Creevey.
“May 1st.

“. . . Here is a story, for the truth of which I do not vouch, but it is in general circulation. The King had appointed the Bishop of Winchester (our own
Sumner) to administer to him the Sacrament on one of the Sundays about Easter. The Bishop was not punctual to his time, and when he arrived, the King, in a great passion at having been kept waiting, abused and even swore at him in the most indecent manner; on which the Bishop very coolly said he must be permitted to withdraw, as he perceived his Majesty was not then in a fit state of mind to receive the Sacrament, and should be ready to attend on some future day, when he hoped to find his Majesty in a better state of preparation!”

The Duke of Wellington took a different view from Mr. Huskisson, who had been in the Goderich Cabinet, upon the Corn duties; in fact, early in spring, Huskisson had laid his resignation before the King, and only consented to withdraw it upon the provision being inserted in the new Corn Law that the full duty of 20s. a quarter upon imported wheat should only be levied when the price fell to 60s. a quarter—the lowest, as landowners maintained, which was compatible with the existence of British agriculture. But when the question of the disfranchisement of Penryn and East Retford came again before the House of Commons, three Ministers—Huskisson, Palmerston, and Lamb (afterwards Lord Melbourne)—voted against their colleagues in favour of disfranchisement. Immediately after the division, Huskisson wrote to the Duke to say that he would “lose no time” in affording him an opportunity of placing his office [Colonial Secretary] “in other hands.” The Duke took the mutinous minister sharply at his word, and refused to listen to the remonstrances of Palmerston and Dudley, who assured him that Huskisson had no wish to resign. Huskisson wrote to the Duke to the same effect; but the Duke’s military
habit of discipline unfitted him for the kind of patience necessary to keep together a political party. Weary of perpetual friction with his Canningite colleagues, he declined all overtures for reconciliation. Huskisson was allowed to go, and was followed out of office by Palmerston,
Grant, Dudley, and Lamb.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Stoke, 3rd June [Ascot Races].

“. . . Grey has seen all the correspondence between the Beau and Huskisson, and a greater mass of lies has never been circulated than those by Huskisson’s friends. In short, everything Wellington has done has been straightforward to the outside, and Huskisson has acted like a knave throughout, and Ward,* who was a negociator between them, like a perfect idiot. Prinney was the only sensible man besides the Beau, and stuck to him like a leech.”


“. . . Well, have you read Huskisson’s charming compositions of letters that he read of his own accord and as his own defence. Never was there anything so low and contemptible throughout, either in intellectual confusion or mental dirt. In short, thank God! he is gone to the devil and can never shew again. The Beau, both in talent and plain dealing, in his letters and conduct, is as clean and clear as ever he can be.† The Pet‡ is quite right upon all these matters at last, Bruffam, tho’ evidently by no means extinguished, is damaged in his estimation.”


“. . . On Tuesday the King made Jersey go over the names of all the company in this house, and when

* Lord Dudley.

† Referring to the correspondence between Mr. Huskisson and the Duke of Wellington about the resignation of the former.

Lord Sefton.

he mentioned mine Prinney was pleased to say:—‘Well, he’s not much of a jockey I think!’”

“Whitehall, June 17th.

“. . . At night Frances* and I were at Lady Jersey’s by half-past eleven. I wish it had been earlier, for we met the Duke of Wellington coming downstairs with a lady under his arm. He put his hand out to me, and gave me a very natural shake, and this was all, you know, that could pass between us under such circumstances. I must say my curiosity to be mixed up with him again is much abated by his late horrible appointments—Croker a Privy Councillor—Vesey Fitzgerald a Cabinet Minister—and, above all, that offensive, inefficient sprig of nobility, Lord Francis Leveson Gower, to be Secretary for Ireland is really beyond all enduring. The last, I presume, is Lady Charlotte Greville’s doing, and must, one should think, be most prejudicial to the Beau. As for Jack Calcraft, I don’t care a fig, and I am sure the dirty Canning Whigs have no cause of complaint against him. Talking of Secretaries for Ireland, do you know of Wm. Lamb’s† crim. con. case? The facts are these. Lord Brandon,† who is a divine as well as a peer, got possession of a correspondence between his lady and Mr. Secretary Lamb, which left no doubt to him or any one else as to the nature of the connection between these young people. So he writes a letter to the lady announcing his discovery, as well as the conclusion he naturally draws from it; but he adds, if she will exert her interest with Mr. Lamb to procure him a bishopric, he will overlook her offence and restore her the letters. To which my lady replies, she shall neither degrade herself nor Mr. Lamb by making any such application; but that she is very grateful to my lord for the letter he has written her, which she shall put immediately into Mr. Lamb’s possession.”

* Mrs. Taylor.

† Afterwards 2nd Viscount Melbourne and Prime Minister.

‡ The Rev. William Crosbie, Lord Brandon, D.D.

“Dolphin Inn, Chichester [where Creevey was staying with
the Seftons for Goodwood Races], August 11th.

“. . . You may judge of our weather at Stoke when I tell you that, with all their courage and contempt of rain, we were on horseback only once, and for less than one hour, and then were wet thro’. But if the body was not regaled, the mind was—at least by me—for I pitched my tent daily in the greenhouse, read Lord Collingwood and his life and letters thro’, and was delighted with him. You must excuse me if I am rather pompous and boring upon this subject. You see, my dear, that altho’ the poor man was the bravest and best and most amiable of men, this personal character of his is nothing compared with the part he acts in history for the four or five years intervening between Nelson’s death and his. At that time the Army was nothing, compared with what it became immediately after, and Collingwood alone by his sagacity and decision—his prudence and moderation—sustained the interests of England and eternally defeated the projects of France. He was, in truth, the prime and sole minister of England, acting upon the seas, corresponding himself with all surrounding States, and ordering and executing everything upon his own responsibility. . . . One has scarcely patience to think that, whilst our Government had the sense to see, and to tell him again and again, that his value to them and the country was such as could never be replaced, and to implore him actually to continue his services at the known and certain sacrifice of his life, still the villains were base enough to refuse every recommendation of his in favor of meritorious officers, as he justly observes, when parliamentary pretensions were to be put in competition.

“The agreeableness of the work is greatly added to by the constant proof it affords of the early, long and intimate union between Nelson and Collingwood. Even in the novel line, I have found nothing so calculated to lumpify one’s throat as when one of these great men of war, poor Nelson, in his dying moments desires his captain to give his love to Collingwood.


“. . . A delightful drive to Arundel, the outside of which, grounds, &c., have been made perfect by our Barny* (who was not there); but the devil himself could make nothing of the interior. Anything so horrid and dark and frightful in all things I never beheld.”


“. . . The house at Goodwood is perfection. It is an immense concern, and every part of it is gaiety itself. It was building when I was at Chichester in 1800 by the old Duke.† and tho’ he lived to finish it, he only left one room furnished. The present Duke‡ has gone on with the furnishing by one room per annum, and as far as he has gone nothing can be done with more perfect taste. . . . Turning out of the hall on our right into the principal drawing-room, 60 feet long at least I should say, with a circular room open at the end—both rooms furnished with the brightest yellow satin . . . here we found the ladies and various men. . . . There were four sisters of the Duchess,§ . . . and four plainer young women one can’t well see. The Duchess, tho’ in my mind not nearly so pretty as the Seftons think, is greatly superior to her sisters, with a most agreeable and intelligent countenance. . . . She has now eight children, and lives all the year in the country. . . . What a sour, snarling beast this Rogers is, and such a fellow for talking about the grandees he lives with—female as well as male, and the loves he has upon his hands. Sefton and I hold him a damned bore.

“Woolbeding, Aug. 16th.

“. . . This place is really exquisite—its history not amiss. This venerable, grave old man‖ and offspring of Blenheim purchased it 35 years ago with the money he won as keeper of the faro bank at Brooks’s, and he has made it what it is by his good taste in planting,

* The 12th Duke of Norfolk.

† The 3rd Duke of Richmond; died in 1806.

‡ The 5th Duke of Richmond.

§ Daughters of the 1st Marquess of Anglesey.

Lord Robert Spencer, 3rd son of the 3rd Duke of Marlborough.

&c. . . . There is only one fictitious ornament to the place, and ‘the Comical’ seems to have shown as much address in converting it into his property as he did in winning the estate. It is a fountain, by far the most perfect in taste, elegance and in everything else I ever saw. I am always going to it. It came from Cowdray, 3 miles off,
Lord Mountague’s. When Cowdray was burnt down 30 years ago, this fountain, being in the middle of a court, was greatly defaced and neglected. Lord Mountague was drowned in the Rhine with Burdett’s brother at the precise time his house was burnt, and so never knew it; and as there was no one on the spot to look after the ruins, Bob thought it but a friendly office to give the fountain a retreat in his grounds, and as he himself told me, it cost him £100 to remove it and put it up here. It has some fame, because Horace Walpole in one of his letters says he had gone or was going to Cowdray to see Lord Mountague’s fountain; and its history is well known as being the production of Benvenuto Cellini,. . . who, they tell me, was a famous man. Look in the dictionary and tell me about him.”

“Petworth, Aug. 18th.

“. . . Nothing can be more imposing or magnificent than the effect of this house the moment you are within it, not from that appearance of comfort which strikes you so much at Goodwood, for it has none. . . . Every door of every room was wide open from one end to the other, and from the front to behind, whichever way you looked; and not a human being visible . . . but the magnitude of the space being seen all at once—the scale of every room, gallery, passage, &c., the infinity of pictures and statues throughout, made as agreeable an impression upon me as I ever witnessed. How we got into the house,* I don’t quite recollect, for I think there is no bell, but I know we were some time at the door, and when we were let in by a little footman, he disappeared de suite, and it was some time before we saw anybody else. At length a young lady appeared, and a very pretty one too, very nicely dressed and with very pretty manners. She proved

* Creevey had come there on a visit with the Seftons.

to be a Miss Wyndham, but, according to the custom of the family, not a legitimate Miss Wyndham, nor yet
Lord Egremont’s own daughter, but his brother William Wyndham’s, who is dead. . . . We had been half an hour at this work [looking at the pictures] when in comes my Lord Egremont—as extraordinary a person, perhaps, as any in England; certainly the most so of his own caste or order. He is aged 77 and as fresh as may be, with a most incomparable and acute understanding, with much more knowledge upon all subjects than he chuses to pretend to, and which he never discloses but incidentally, and, as it were, by compulsion. Simplicity and sarcasm are his distinguishing characteristics. He has a fortune, I believe, of £100,000 a year, and never man could have used it with such liberality and profusion as he has done. Years and years ago he was understood to be £200,000 or £300,000 out of pocket for the extravagance of his brother Charles Wyndham, just now dead; he has given each of these natural daughters £40,000 upon their marriage; he has dealt in the same liberal scale with private friends, with artists, and, lastly, with by no means the least costly customers—with mistresses, of whom Lady Melbourne must have been the most distinguished leader in that way.

“He was very civil, and immediately said—‘What will you do?’ and upon Sefton expressing a wish to see his racing establishment, a carriage was ordered to the door, and another for the ladies to drive about the park. In the interval till they arrived, he slouched along the rooms with his hat on and his hands in his breeches pockets, making occasional observations upon the pictures and statues, which were always most agreeable and instructive, but so rambling and desultory, and walking on all the time, that it was quite provoking to pass so rapidly over such valuable materials. . . . [After spending a long afternoon inspecting the racing stud] I was much struck with Lord Egremont observing that he did not take much interest in the thing; that it had been an amusement to his brother, and on that account he had gone on with it. When I asked Sefton if he had not been struck with this, he said:—‘Yes; and the more struck and the more pleased because he did not say his poor brother.’

1827-28.] CREEVEY OUT IN THE COLD. 165

“. . . [At dinner] it fell to my lot to hand out Mrs. Wyndham, the Somerset filly,* and whatever you may say or think, she is really become damned handy and agreeable. . . . I retired to my bedroom, which, upon measurement, I found to be 30 feet by 20, and high in proportion. The bed would have held six people in a row without the slightest inconvenience to each other. . . . I had quantities of companions, but only two with names to them—‘Bloody Queen Mary and Sir Henry Sidney as large as life. . . .”

There follow many pages of description of the pictures in the house; and although the names of the painters are given in much detail, there is not a word of George Romney’s well-known works at Petworth, so completely had that artist, so much sought after now, fallen out of esteem.

Having lost his friend Lord Thanet, by whose favour he sat for the borough of Appleby, and not being acquainted with the new earl, Mr. Creevey was unprovided with a seat at the election of 1828. Lord Darlington, indeed, possessed, among others, the comfortable constituency of Winchelsea, boasting no less than eleven electors, and returning two members to Parliament. These two members happened to be Lord Howick and Mr. Brougham, the first of whom was standing for Northumberland, the second for Westmorland—neither of them with much prospect of winning his contest. Creevey had so completely won the favour of Lady Darlington that, aided by Mrs. Taylor, she persuaded Lord Darlington to promise the reversion of one of the Winchelsea seats to him, supposing Howick or Brougham, or both, to

* Daughter of Lord Charles Somerset, 2nd son of the 5th Duke of Beaufort. She married Mr. (afterwards General Sir Henry) Wyndham, brother of the 1st Lord Leconfield.

be successful in the north. Creevey had an interview with Lord Darlington on 5th June, and found that they were of one mind in politics, save on the Corn Laws, to the reform of which Darlington, as a great landowner, was distinctly opposed. However, explained Creevey, “any such discussion appeared to me unnecessary, because there was no principle I held more sacred than that, when one gentleman held a gratuitous seat in Parliament from another, and any difference arose in their politicks, the former was bound in honor to surrender it.”

He went down and acted for Lord Howick in the election for Winchelsea, but as both Brougham and Howick failed in the northern constituencies, Creevey found himself, for a second time, out in the cold. He treated his exclusion very philosophically, and presently we find him writing his accustomed despatches to Miss Ord.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Stoke, August 20th.

“. . . Old Salisbury* arrived yesterday . . . in her accustomed manner, in a phaeton drawn by four long-tail black Flanders mares—she driving the wheel horses, and a postilion on the leaders, with two outriders on corresponding long-tail blacks. Her man and maid were in her chaise behind; her groom and saddle horses arrived some time after her. It is impossible to do justice to the antiquity of her face. If, as alleged, she is only 74 years old, it is the most cracked, or rather furrowed piece of mosaic you ever saw; but her dress, in the colours of it at least, is absolutely infantine. . . . Sefton says she is very clever, and he ought to know. I wish you just saw her as I do now. She thinks she is alone, and I am

* The Dowager Marchioness, who was burnt to death with the west wing of Hatfield House in 1835.

writing at the end of the adjoining room, the folding doors being open. She is reclining on a sofa, reading the
Edinbro’ Review, without spectacles or glass of any kind. Her dress is white muslin, properly loaded with garniture, and she has just put off a very large bonnet, profusely gifted with bright lilac ribbons, leaving on her head a very nice lace cap, not less adorned with the brightest yellow ribbon. . . .”

“Stoke, Aug. 26th.

“. . . Upon our return [from Egham races] our only company arrived was Wm. Lamb, alias Viscount Melbourne. I had a good walk with him and found him very pretty company indeed, and very instructive about Ireland. At about 8 we sat down to dinner—Prince and Princess Lieven, Lord and Lady Cowper, Lord Melbourne, [Sir George] Warrender, Montron, C. Greville, Frank Russell, Luttrell and Motteux, which with C. Grenville, Churchill and myself, and the worthy family themselves [the Seftons] made 19 or 20. To-day the party is to be added to by Prince d’Aremberg, Villa Real, Alvanley and our flash Tom Duncombe. . . .

O’Connell’s election and Dawson’s speech at Derry* are conclusive proofs to me of some great approaching change in the fate of Ireland, and I wish to see that country before and during the operation of this crisis.”

* Vesey Fitzgerald, on accepting office, had been beaten by Dan O’Connell in standing his re-election for county Clare. O’Connell, as a Roman Catholic, could not take his seat in Parliament. The Clare election had a notable influence upon the question of Roman Catholic emancipation.