LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

The Creevey Papers
Ch XIII: 1819-20

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
( 292 )

There is almost a blank in Mr. Creevey’s correspondence during 1819, in which year he continued to live in Brussels. This is the more to be regretted because the fragments which remain are lively and full of gossip.

Lord Holland to Mr. Creevey.
“St. James Square, 19th Jan., 1819.

“. . . I suspect that which you heard of the payment of cash at the bank will not be fulfilled this year, tho’ an impression has been made on the country by the executions for forgery, and on the great body of retail traders by the forgeries themselves.* . . . Tierney moves on the subject on the 1st of next Feby., and so changed is the opinion on the subject since you were among us, that it is selected, and wisely selected, as the most popular question for Opposition to begin with. The Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage men are at a discount: Ministers worse than ever, and the Whigs, tho’ better than I have remembered them for some years, far from being in a condition to lead with any degree of certainty publick

* Between the suspension of cash payments by the Bank in February, 1797, and February, 1818, three hundred and thirteen persons were sentenced to death for forgery; whereas during the fourteen years, 1783-96, preceding such suspension the convictions had only been three in number. During the six years, 1812-18, no less than 131,361 notes, varying in value from £1 to £20, were detected as forgeries on presentation for payment.

opinion and confidence, though I think they are, of the three parties, that to which the publick just now look most sanguinely for assistance in accomplishing their object. What these objects are, it is difficult to conjecture or define, and perhaps the very indistinctness of them will lead the publick to be disappointed with parties and men. But that there is great expectation that much can, ought and will be done in Parliament is clear beyond doubt, and moreover that expectation, if uncertain and even impracticable in its direction, is grounded on causes that lie too deep to be easily removed. . . . There is a wonderful change in the feelings, opinions, condition, property and relative state of the classes in society. The House of Commons hangs yet more loosely upon parties, and certainly on the Ministerial party, than the last; and the Ministers, exclusive of many grounds of dissension among themselves (which are suspected, but may not be true),* are evidently aware and afraid of the dispositions of the new Parliament. The Lords and Grooms of the Windsor establishment have received notice to quit, and no notice of pensions. Some say that they will muster an opposition to retrenchment in the Lords, which may lead to a dispute between the two Houses. Had they any spirit or talent as well as ill-humour, our Ultra’s might worry the Ministers on this subject not a little; for what is more profligate than to resist all retrenchment at Windsor during the
Queen’s life, and on her death to abandon the establishment—so necessary, as they contended, to his [the King’s] happiness? . . . Brougham is very accommodating, but not in such spirits as he was. He feels (indeed who does not?) the loss of Romilly doubly as the session approaches. . . . That mad fellow Verbyst promised to send over the Bipontine edition of Plato and L’Enfant’s Council of Pisa. He received 144 franks for the first—so for the last. He wrote to say that if he could not get the books, he would

* Here speaks the old politician, wary from experience. When was there ever a Ministry about which rumours of internal dissension were not circulated and eagerly believed? In Lord Liverpool’s Cabinet the great question of Roman Catholic Emancipation continued to be treated as an open one, and Ministers voted as they pleased.

return the money: he has done neither. I should prefer the books. Pray see him and make him do one or other. . . .”

Lord Kinnaird [?] to Mr. Creevey.
“London, no date [1819].

“. . . Lord Lascelles’ son has married Harriet Wilson’s sister: Lord Langford’s—an old wretch of the name of Aylmer, and there are some people who express a dread that young Whitbread will marry a woman who lives with him. Lord Byron’s poem,* which I brought to England, is returned to Venice. Murray the Bookseller is afraid of printing it. Rogers’s Poem, entitled ‘Human Life,’ is favorably talked of. Poor man, he treats himself upon these occasions as a woman does: he has shut himself up, and seems to think it necessary not to go out till his month is up.”

Henry Brougham, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“5, Hill St., no date [1819].
“My dear C.,

“You talk like an idiot—a Liverpolian—a concentric—a pautriot (quid plura?) in all you say about the Jerseys. I appeal to Bennet who was present when Lady Jersey said how delighted she would be to see you at Middleton. But suppose I had said you would go with me, and had written to her the day before—that would have been quite sufficient. Rely upon me—I am the last and shyest man in the world to do these things at such places as Holland House, Chatsworth, Croxteth, &c., but I am on a footing of friendship with the Jerseys as intimate as if I were a brother, and I know them thoroughly, and you may trust me. But a cross accident has for the present delayed it all. The D. of York goes there the 16th, instead of the 6th (as he had said), so our party (Sefton,

* Don Juan.

1819-20.]DEATH OF GEORGE III.295
Thanet, Ossy,* &c.) is put off. Then Sefton is engaged to [illegible] on the 20th, and to Sir H. Featherstone 25th (pray mention this visit to him when you write); therefore we talk of Middleton the end of Jany. or beginning of Feby.”

At the end of 1819 or beginning of 1820 Mr. Creevey returned to England, after an absence, apparently continuous, of six years. In the interval he had lost his seat for Thetford, and, by the death of his wife, his income had fallen from a very comfortable figure to extremely narrow dimensions. On 29th January the long reign of George III. came to a close. The reign, indeed, had ended ten years before, when the Regency was proclaimed, and the old king had passed the rest of his days in hopeless, but harmless, insanity, and bereft of sight. When it became apparent that his end was at hand, the party of the Princess of Wales perceived necessity for her immediate return to England, inasmuch as the life of the Regent seemed not much better than that of his father. The Princess had been wandering over Europe and the East, giving rise to flagrant scandal by her irregular mode of life. When her husband became King, his Government offered her £50,000 a year to renounce her title of Queen and live abroad; but, acting under the advice of Brougham, she declined this, returned to London, and the consequence was the trial for divorce which occupied so much of Creevey’s time and correspondence during the year. Meanwhile he paid a visit under Brougham’s auspices to Lady Jersey at Middleton. From this time forward, his second step-daughter, Miss Elizabeth Ord—“Bessy” and “Barry” of a thousand letters—became his constant correspondent.

* Lord Ossulston.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Middleton [Lord Jersey’s], Jan. 21, 1820.

“. . . We got to Cashiobury [Lord Essex’s] at ½ past five on Wednesday, too late to see the outside of the house, and were shown into a most comfortable library—a beautiful room 50 feet in length, full of books and every comfort. . . . We passed a most agreeable evening. I did not see the flower garden, which is the great lion of the place. Brougham and I had a most agreeable drive here, not the less so to me from the extraordinary friendliness of him. . . . We arrived here yesterday at five. We found only Lord Foley and Berkeley Craven, and they are gone this morning, so we compose only a quartette. The house is immensely large, apparently, for I have not seen it all, and cannot get out for the immense fall of snow during the night. . . .”

“23rd January.

“. . . Shall I tell you what Lady Jersey is like? She is like one of her numerous gold and silver musical dickey birds, that are in all the shew rooms of this house. She begins to sing at eleven o’clock, and, with the interval of the hour she retires to her cage to rest, she sings till 12 at night without a moment’s interruption. She changes her feathers for dinner, and her plumage both morng. and eveng. is the happiest and most beautiful I ever saw. Of the merits of her songs I say nothing till we meet. In the meantime I will say that I presume we are getting on, for this morning her ladyship condescended to give me two fingers to shake, and last night asked me twice to give her my verses on the Duke of Northumberland, as she had mislaid and could not find the copy Gertrude Bennet had given her. . . .”

“Liverpool, Jan. 30.

“. . . What think you of the accounts of the King? He is, I apprehend, rapidly approaching to his death—and then for the Queen and Bruffam! I did not tell you the other day, he has now in his possession the proper instrument signed by herself, appointing him
her Attorney-General. The moment she is Queen—that is, the moment the breath is out of the King’s body—this gives Bruffam instant rank in his profession, such as silk gown, precedence, &c., &c., in defiance of
King, Chancellor and all the world, besides its importance in the public eye.”

Henry Brougham, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“Hill St., 5th Feb.
“Dear C.,

“Your advice has been followed by anticipation (to speak Irish); at this moment my courier is within a couple of days’ journey of the Queen. He was despatched on Sunday, for I had early notice from the D. of Sussex* coming to my bedside at 2 in the morning. The courier (Sicard) was with me by 7, and after some delay for a passport from the P. Minister, he was off. He took my appointment and Denman’s as Atty. and Solr. General, as I did not like to use the blank one I have with me. He also took a letter from me, giving her no choice, but commanding her instantly to set out by land, and be at Brussells or Paris or Calais immediately. Then she will demand a yatch.

“Now—the young King† has been as near death as any man but poor Kent ever was before—150 oz. of blood let have saved his precious life. I never prayed so heartily for a Prince before. If he had gone, all the troubles of these villains‡ went with him, and they had Fred. I.§ their own man for his life—i.e. a shady Tory-professional King, who would have done a job or two for Lauderdale, smiled on Lady [Jersey], been civil at Holland House, and shot Tom Coke’s‖ legs and birds, without ever deviating right hand or left, or giving them,⁋ politically, the least

* About the King’s danger.

† Young, not in years, but in reign. It was just a week since the accession.

‡ Ministers.

§ The Duke of York.

‖ Of Holkham, created Earl of Leicester in 1837.

⁋ Ministers.

annoyance. This King they will have too, for the present man can’t long survive. He (Fred. I.) won’t live long either;* that Prince of Blackguards ‘
Brother William’ is as bad a life,† so we come in the course of nature to be assassinated by King Ernest I. or Regent Ernest.‡

“Meanwhile, the change of name which Mrs. P.§ has undergone has had a wondrous effect on publick feeling. She is extremely popular. . . . The cry at the Proclamation was God save the Queen! but Perry durst not put it in his paper, tho’ with the respectability which belongs to Mackintosh’s gent of the Daily Press. He told me all this in private.

“The rage of the new monarch against Leach and Eldon and Co. exceeds all bounds. He finds he has now a Queen in possession to [illegible], she having 70 places (some of them very fat ones) to give away. I think of making her replace or offer to replace all the old Queen’s pensioned household, to save salaries, and stop the mouths of a few courtiers, who will soon find out that she has every virtue.

“H. B.”

The demise of the Monarch rendered necessary, according to the constitutional law of those days, a dissolution of Parliament, and this was accordingly effected by Royal Proclamation on 29th February. Mr. Creevey was returned for the borough of Appleby, by favour of his friend the Earl of Thanet. Mr. Wilbraham, writing to Lord Colchester, the former Speaker, observed: “I see no material change in your old dominions, the House of Commons, which is constituted of much the same materials as the last, with the addition of Creevey, who has become a great orator in his old age.”

* He died in 1827.

† The Duke of Clarence [William IV.].

‡ The Duke of Cumberland.

§ The Princess of Wales, who had become Queen Caroline.


The profit which “the Mountain” had been waiting so long and impatiently to derive from the return of Queen Caroline turned to ashes in their hands. Popular sympathy, indeed, was vehemently—dangerously—in her favour, and the name of George IV. had only to be mentioned to create a hostile manifestation. So far so good, from the Mountain’s point of view; but, on the other hand, the question thus revived only made more manifest the schism in the Opposition. Lord Grey and the Old Whigs shrank from espousing the cause of the Queen, which, however just it might be, was in truth exceedingly humiliating and even unsavoury. Holland House held aloof from the movement, and there appears in consequence a marked change in the references by Creevey and his friends to that great Whig rendezvous and its inmates.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Liverpool, 24th July.

“. . . As for the wretched dirt and meanness of Holland House, it makes me perfectly sick. I have had the same story from Brougham some months back, who was then himself a competitor with Mackintosh for an epitaph upon poor Fox’s tombstone. He repeated to me the thing got up by Mackintosh, which was fifty thousand times inferior to the lowest ballad in favor of the Queen. But Holland House has quite made up its mind that the two great and brilliant features of Fox’s publick life (his resistance to the war upon America and the glorious fight which he made single-handed against helping the Bourbons to trample on the French nation) shall never have the sanction of either my lady or Mackintosh to appear in his history, and all this, least it might interfere with any arrangement. This is the true history of this despicable twaddling. . . .”

The Earl of Sefton to Mr. Creevey.

“. . . Have you heard of the competition about the inscription for Fox’s monument? Nothing can be more ridiculous than the intrigues about it at Holland House. Mackintosh’s was preferred there to Grey’s, tho’ by all accounts it was great trash and Grey’s very good. Lady H. found fault with the latter, and it was agreed that Mrs. Fox’s opinion should be asked. She answered in Ly. H.’s words, and showed plainly she had been prepared with a reply. The end is, the monument is to be without any inscription but C. J. Fox. Can you conceive, in times like these, such stuff being made of importance?”

In regard to the proceedings of and against Queen Caroline, which formed the chief topic of public interest and gossip after the elections were decided, there is a vast amount of correspondence among Mr. Creevey’s papers. He seems to have mistrusted Brougham throughout, who, of course, can be easily perceived, at this distance of time, to have behaved with the utmost cynicism, and to have treated the Queen and her cause as so much capital, to be turned to profit for his party, and, above all, for himself. Creevey seems to have been swayed alternately by indignation at Brougham’s insincerity and admiration for his sagacity and rhetoric.

The facts of the case are matters of well-known history. It is only expedient to recapitulate the chief stages in the melancholy story, and to extract from Creevey’s daily letters during the trial those passages which bring the tragic scene most vividly before the reader.

The reports of the Princess of Wales’s proceedings
in the south of Europe, notably of the familiar terms to which she habitually admitted a male servant named
Bergami, had become so persistent and specific that they could no longer be disregarded. So, at least, thought the Prince Regent and his Ministers. Accordingly in 1818 a commission was appointed and sent into Germany and Italy to collect such evidence as might afford ground for a divorce. The matter was of the greater gravity inasmuch as infidelity on the part of the Queen Consort or wife of the Heir Apparent constituted high treason and was punishable by death.

In June, 1819, Brougham made a proposal to Lord Liverpool on behalf, but without the knowledge, of the Princess of Wales, binding her to reside permanently abroad and never to assume the rank and title of Queen of England, on condition that her allowance of £35,000 a year should be secured to her for life, instead of terminating with the demise of the Crown. Lord Liverpool replied that there would be no unwillingness to treat on these terms, if her Royal Highness gave her approval to them. Needless to say that such a proposal, coming from the Princess’s principal legal adviser at such a time, or, indeed, at any time, was considered tantamount to an acknowledgment of her guilt, or, at least, want of confidence in her defence.

In September of that year Brougham desired the Princess to meet him at Lyons, but although she went there and waited for him several weeks, he never took the trouble to keep the appointment, and no consultation took place between them upon the negotiation with Lord Liverpool.

On the accession of George IV. Caroline became
de facto Queen of England. The King pressed vehemently that she should be brought to trial; his Ministers shrank from the obloquy which would fall upon the Crown whatever might be the result of such a trial. The King exercised his prerogative in forbidding the Queen’s name to be printed in the Liturgy, and that she should be named in the public prayers of the Established Churches.

On 15th April Lord Liverpool communicated to Brougham an offer identical with Brougham’s of the previous year, except that the allowance to be paid was increased from £35,000 to £50,000 a year. One of the least defensible points in Brougham’s conduct in regard to this case was that he neither communicated this proposal to Queen Caroline, nor, on the other hand, informed the Cabinet that it had not been made known to her Majesty.

In March Queen Caroline published a manifesto in the newspapers, setting forth some of her grievances; in May she began to travel north, and invited Brougham to meet her, which he did, accompanied by Lord Hutchinson, at Saint Omer, on 3rd June. Brougham made known to the Queen that Hutchinson was charged with certain proposals on her behalf from the Government, namely, the terms which Brougham ought to have made known to her long before. These terms having been submitted to her Majesty, she emphatically refused them, acting under Brougham’s advice.

Leaving Brougham at Saint Omer, the Queen, accompanied by Alderman Wood and his son, Lady Anne Hamilton, and a person named Austin, sailed from Calais, and landed at Dover on 6th June. She was received by a royal salute from the garrison, and
travelled to London in a kind of triumphal procession, arriving there the following day. The mob were vehemently in her favour; all houses were illuminated—some from sympathy, many out of fear that the windows would be smashed in, and the most crying scandal of the nineteenth century was well under way.
Lord Liverpool brought a message to the House of Lords from the King, announcing that his Majesty “thinks it necessary, in consequence of the arrival of the Queen, to communicate to the House of Lords certain papers respecting the conduct of her Majesty since her departure from this Kingdom, which he recommends to the immediate and serious attention of the House.” A similar message was communicated to the House of Commons by Lord Castlereagh. Negotiations with the Queen were opened in order to induce her to leave the country quietly, Lords Fitzwilliam and Sefton being appointed to act for her Majesty, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh for the King’s Government. This stamped the proceedings emphatically as a party contest, and this character was further emphasised later by the substitution of Messrs. Brougham and Denman, Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to the Queen, for the two Whig Lords.

After five days’ conference, the negotiations broke down upon the question of restoring to the Liturgy the name of “our most gracious Queen Caroline.” Upon that point King George was inflexible. When Brougham insisted upon it, “You might as easily move Carlton House,” said Castlereagh. The ferment out-of-doors was mounting and spreading. Meetings were got up all over the country to protest against the persecution of the Queen. There was no
regular police force in London at this time;* the Guards were relied upon for maintaining public order, but the Guards had shown strong partiality for the Queen against the Government, and one battalion was in actual mutiny. On 19th June a debate arose in the House of Commons upon the King’s refusal to restore his Consort’s name to the Liturgy, in the course of which
Denman used words which found an echo in millions of hearts throughout the realm. It had been urged from the Treasury Bench that even though the Queen was not mentioned by name in the Liturgy, she might be held as included in the general prayer for the royal family. “If her Majesty,” retorted Denman, “is included in any general prayer, it is in the prayer for all who are desolate and oppressed.”

On 5th July Lord Liverpool introduced in the Lords a Bill “to deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth of the title, prerogative rights, privileges and exemptions of Queen Consort of this realm, and to dissolve the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline Amelia Elizabeth.”

The second reading was taken in the Lords on 17th August, and showed a singular combination of judicial and parliamentary procedure, evidence being taken for prosecution and defence, and the verdict given in the division on the second reading, which did not take place till November, when it was carried by 123 votes to 95.

In Mr. Creevey’s daily letters to Miss Ord, from which a number of extracts follow, will be found some curious personal impressions of the painful scene.

* The origin of the present police force may be traced in a memorandom by the Duke of Wellington upon the situation at this time [Civil Despatches, i. 128].

1819-20.] OPINION AT KNOWSLEY. 305
Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Knowsley, 7th August, 1820.

“. . . I came here on Saturday. I like Lady Mary* better every time I see her. You know what a d——d ramshackle of a library they have here, so I was complaining at breakfast this morning that they had no State Trials in the house; upon which Lady Mary said she was sure she could find some, and accordingly flew from her breakfast and came back in triumph at having found them for me. Upon the subject of the Queen, my lord and my lady are both substantially right, i.e., in thinking there is not a pin to chuse between them, and that the latter has been always ill-used, and that nobody but the King could get redress in such a case against his wife. Little Derby goes further than the Countess, when she is not by; but she thinks it proper to deprecate all violence, and says, tho’ Bennet and I are excellent men, and she likes us both extremely, still, that we are like Dives, and that Lazarus ought to come occasionally and cool our tongues. Is not this the image of her?”

“Liverpool, 12th August.

“I left Knowsley yesterday. Lord Derby has received a letter from Lord Roslyn, telling him there had been a devil of a blow up between the King and Duke of York. The latter wanted to absent himself from the approaching trial of the Queen; I presume from feelings of delicacy in his situation as having lost his wife.† The King, however, was furious, and has commanded the Duke to be present on Thursday. . . . I cannot resist the curiosity of seeing a Queen tried. From the House of Lords or from Brooks’s you shall have a daily account of what passes.”

“London, 16th August.

“. . . I am just come from Lord Sefton. I learn from him that Lord Spencer has had an interview with Lord Liverpool, the object of it being friendly

* Lady Mary Stanley, married the 2nd Earl of Wilton in 1821.

† The Duchess of York died on 6th August, 1820.

on the part of Lord Spencer, at the same time to implore Liverpool to pause, and to retract indeed, before this terrible work was entered upon. Liverpool was friendly in return, and quite unreserved. . . . Lord Spencer was decidedly of opinion that the very openness of the
Queen’s conduct carried with it her acquittal from the supposed crime. This is most curious from such a solemn chap as old Spencer. . . .”

“House of Lords, August 16th.

“. . . This is very convenient. There is not only the usual admission for the House of Commons upon the [steps of] the Throne,* but pen, ink and paper for our accommodation in the long gallery. There is a fine chair for the Queen within the bar, to be near her counsel and the two galleries. This makes all the difference. Two hundred and fifty peers are to attend, 60 being excused from age, infirmities, being abroad or professing the Catholic faith.

Wilberforce told Bennet that the act of his life which he most reproached himself with was not having moved to restore the Queen to the Liturgy, and he was sure this was the only course. Grey says the Queen ought to be sent to the Tower for her letter to the King.

“Here is Castlereagh, smiling as usual, though I think awkwardly. . . . Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt has just been here and tho’ in his official dress as Black Rod, was most communicative. He says the Government is stark, staring mad; that they want to prevent his receiving the Queen to-morrow at the door as Queen, but that he will. . . .”

“17th August.

“. . . Near the House of Lords there is a fence of railing put across the street from the Exchequer coffee-house to the enclosed garden ground joining to St. Margaret’s churchyard, through which members of both Houses were alone permitted to pass. A minute after I passed, I heard an uproar, with hissing

* In the present House of Lords admission to the steps of the throne is restricted to Privy Councillors and sons of Peers; accommodation being provided elsewhere for the Commons.

and shouting. On turning round I saw it was
Wellington on horseback. His horse made a little start, and he looked round with some surprise. He caught my eye as he passed, and nodded, but was evidently annoyed.

“I got easily into the Lords and to a place within two yards of the chair placed for the Queen, on the right hand of the throne, close to its steps. They proceeded to call over the House and to receive excuses from absent peers. As the operation was going on, people came in who said the Queen was on her way and as far as Charing Cross. Two minutes after, the shouts of the populace announced her near approach, and some minutes after, two folding doors within a few feet of me were suddenly thrown open, and in entered her Majesty. To describe to you her appearance and manner is far beyond my powers. I had been taught to believe she was as much improved in looks as in dignity of manners; it is therefore with much pain I am obliged to observe that the nearest resemblance I can recollect to this much-injured Princess is a toy which you used to call Fanny Royds.* There is another toy of a rabbit or a cat, whose tail you squeeze under its body, and then out it jumps in half a minute off the ground into the air. The first of these toys you must suppose to represent the person of the Queen; the latter the manner by which she popped all at once into the House, made a duck at the throne, another to the Peers, and a concluding jump into the chair which was placed for her. Her dress was black figured gauze, with a good deal of trimming, lace, &c.: her sleeves white, and perfectly episcopal; a handsome white veil, so thick as to make it very difficult to me, who was as near to her as any one, to see her face; such a back for variety and inequality of ground as you never beheld; with a few straggling ringlets on her neck, which I flatter myself from their appearance were not her Majesty’s own property.

“She squatted into her chair with such a grace that the gown is at this moment hanging over every part

* A Dutch toy with a round bottom, weighted with lead, so that it always jumps erect in whatever position it is laid.

of it—both back and elbows. . . . When the
Queen entered, the Lords (Bishops and all) rose, and then they fell to calling over the House again and receiving excuses. When the Duke of Sussex’s name was called, the Chancellor read his letter, begging to be excused on the ground of consanguinity; upon which the Duke of York rose, and in a very marked and angry tone said:—‘I have much stronger ground for asking leave of absence than the Duke of Sussex, and yet I should be ashamed not to be present to do my duty!’ This indiscreet observation (to say no worse of it) was by no means well received or well thought of, and when the question was put ‘that the Duke of Sussex be excused upon his letter,’ the House granted it with scarce a dissentient voice. Pretty well, this, for the Duke of York’s observation!

“Well—this finished, and the order read ‘that the House do proceed with the Bill,’ the Duke of Leinster rose and said in a purely Irish tone that, without making any elaborate speech, and for the purpose of bringing this business to a conclusion, he should move that this order be now rescinded. Without a word from any one on this subject the House divided, we members of the Commons House remaining. There were 41 for Leinster and 206 (including 17 Bishops) against him; but, what was more remarkable, there were 20 at least of our Peers who voted against the Duke of Leinster—as Grey, Lansdowne, Derby, Fitzwilliam, Spencer, Erskine, Grafton, de Clifford, Darlington, Yarborough, &c. Lord Kenyon and Lord Stanhope were the only persons who struck me in the Opposition as new. The Duke of Gloucester would not vote, notwithstanding cousin York’s observations. Holland, the Duke of Bedford, old Fortescue, Thanet, &c., were of course in the minority. . . . This division being over, Carnarvon objected in a capital speech to any further proceeding, and was more cheered than is usual with the Lords; but no doubt it was from our 40 friends. Then came Grey and I think he made as weak a speech as ever I heard: so thought Brougham and Denman who were by me. He wanted the opinion of the Judges upon the statute of Edward III. as to a Queen’s treason, and after speeches from Eldon, Liverpool and Lansdowne,
Grey’s motion is acceded to, and the Judges are now out preparing their opinion, and all is at a stand.

“I forgot to say Lady Ann Hamilton* waits behind the Queen, and that, for effect and delicacy’s sake, she leans on brother Archy’s† arm, tho’ she is full six feet high, and bears a striking resemblance to one of Lord Derby’s great red deer. Keppel Craven and Sir William Gell likewise stand behind the Queen in full dress. . . . Lord John Russell† is writing on my right hand, and Sir Hussey Vivian§ on my left. I have just read over my account of the Queen to the latter, and he deposes to its perfect truth.

“I have just given this lad, Lord John, such a fire for his buttering of Wilberforce‖ that he had more blood in his little white face than I ever saw before; but all the Russells are excellent, and in my opinion there is nothing in the aristocracy to be compared with this family.”

“Four o’clock.

“Well, the Judges returned, as one knew they would, saying there was no statute-law or law of the land touching the Queen’s case. Then counsel were called in; upon which the Duke of Hamilton, in a most excellent manner, ask’d Mr. Attorney General for whom he appeared, or by whose instructions. A more gravelling question could not well be put, as appeared by Mr. Attorney’s manner. He shifted and snuffled about, and Liverpool helped, and Lord Belhaven ended the conversation by declaring his utter ignorance of the prosecution—whether it was by the Crown, the Ministers, or the House of Lords. . . . There are great crowds of people about the House, and all the way up Parliament Street. The Guards, both horse and foot, are there too in great numbers, but I saw nothing except good humour on all sides.

* Second daughter of the 9th Duke of Hamilton.

Lord Archibald Hamilton, M.P., second son of the 9th Duke of Hamilton.

‡ Afterwards Prime Minister; created Earl Russell in 1861.

§ Commanded the Light Cavalry Brigade at Waterloo; created a baronet in 1828, and Lord Vivian in 1841.

Lord John had written to Wilberforce upon the Queen’s trial, complimenting him incidentally upon his talents.

The Civil Power has regained the Pass of Killiecranky * again, but it is fought for every time a carriage passes. . . .”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

Brougham in his speech has fired a body blow into the Duke of York on Mrs. Clark’s affair, which has given great offence.”

“York St., 18th Aug.

“. . . Brougham’s speech (the last hour of which I did not hear) is allowed on all hands to have been excellent. We had a full Brooks’s last night, and much jaw; Grey affable, quite sure the bill will be knocked up sooner or later, and offering to take [? lay] ten to one it will disappear, even in the Lords, before Saturday fortnight. He knows the cursed folly he committed yesterday in forsaking the Duke of Leinster. . . . Western is first rate in his decision that it won’t do, and that Grey never can shew his face as a public man again. . . .”

“House of Lords, 12 o’clock.

“. . . Denman is speaking as well as possible, tho’ I am all against his introducing jokes, which he has been doing somewhat too much. I was much astonished at their lordships being so much and so universally tickled as they were by some of his stories. Denman, holding the bill in his hand, said:—‘Levity of manner is one of its charges. Why this charge, applies to all Royal people: they are all good-tempered and playful.’ Then he gave a conversation which took place between his present Majesty and Sam Spring, the waiter at the Cocoa Tree, where Sam cracked his jokes and was very familiar with the Prince; upon which the latter said:—‘This is all very well between you and me, Sam, but beware of being equally familiar with Norfolk and Abercorn.’ All the Lords recognised the story and snorted out hugely—Bishops and all.

“I thought the Lords rose to receive the Queen with a better grace to-day than yesterday. Everything respecting her coming to the House is now as perfect as possible. She has a most superb and beautiful

* The barrier described on p. 306.

coach with six horses—the coachman driving in a cap, like the old king’s coachman; and a good coach of her own behind for
Craven and Gell. . . .”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

“. . . Nothing can be more triumphant for the Queen than this day altogether. . . . The truth is the Law Officers of the Crown are damnably overweighted by Brougham and Denman. . . .”

“House of Lords, 19th August.

“. . . The Queen is not here to-day; and she does not mean to come, I believe, till Tuesday. I am rather sorry for this, because there was so very great, and so well-dressed, a population in the street to see her to-day. Where the devil they all come from, I can’t possibly imagine, but I think the country about London must furnish a great part. It is prodigiously encreased since the first day. . . . Now Mr. Attorney General has at last begun by opening his case against the Queen, and I have heard just one hour of him, and then left it. Now her danger begins, and I am quite unable to conjecture the degree of damage she will sustain from the publication of this opening. I say degree, because of course it is quite impossible that a very great effect should not be produced upon the better orders of people by the production of this cursed, disgusting narrative, however overstated it may eventually prove to be, and however short (if all strictly true) it may fall of the actual crime charged by the Bill.”

“Brooks’s, 22nd Aug., ½ past 4.

“. . . Upon the whole, I hope things are looking better for us to-day. The people in the streets were numerous, but not so much so as formerly, nor was their quality so good. Yesterday’s evidence had certainly shook her friends—always excepting Lady Gwydyr* and her family at their house at Whitehall. I stood on Lord Melbourne’s steps to see the Queen pass, and the Dowr. Gwydyr (alias Eresby) with all

* The Dowager Lady Gwydyr was Lady Willoughby d’Eresby and joint Great Chamberlain in her own right.

her family black as sloes, with weepers, windows open, &c., all bowed at once again and again, with an awe and devotion as if they had been good Catholicks and the Queen the Virgin Mary. . . .”

“House of Lords, 25th Aug., 1 o’clock.

“Our matters, so far in the day, stand much better than they did at the close of yesterday. The two captains, Pechell and Briggs, have been called, and so far from proving anything against the Queen, they have distinctly sworn there was not the slightest impropriety in the conduct of the Queen during the period she was on board their ships. The fact of Bergami having come the first time as servant, and afterwards sitting at table on board one of these ships, was of course proved; but everybody knew it before, and it does not signify a damn. . . .

“The discovery of this day, viz. that Capts. Briggs and Pechell were to be the only English witnesses produced against the Queen, was most agreeable and unexpected to me, because of a conversation which had passed between the Duke of Wellington and myself on the subject. The night after I made my speech in the House of Commons in support of Genl. Ferguson’s motion for the production of the Milan commission, I saw the Duke at the Argyle Rooms, who, with his usual frankness, came up to me and said:—‘Well, Creevey; so you gave us a blast last night. Have you seen Leach since?’ Then we talked about the approaching trial with the most perfect freedom, and upon my saying their foreign evidence would find very few believers in this country, he said:—‘Ho! but we have a great many English witnesses—officers;’ and this, I confess, was the thing that always frightened me the most. . . . I sat between Grey and Sir Robert Wilson* at Sefton’s

* General Sir Robert Thomas Wilson [1777-1849], commonly known as “Jaffa Wilson,” owing to the charges made against Napoleon of cruelty to his prisoners at Jaffa in Wilson’s History of the British Expedition to Egypt. Having warmly espoused the cause of Queen Caroline, he was present at the riot in Hyde Park on the occasion of Her Majesty’s funeral. Although he was endeavouring to prevent a

yesterday, and two greater fools I never saw in all my life. The former, in consequence of the day’s evidence being unfavourable to the Queen, was a rigid lover of justice: he did not care a damn about the cause: he was come up to do his duty, and should act accordingly. Wilson, on the other hand, was perfectly certain the Bill would never pass the House of Lords, and that, if it did, it must take at least two years in the Commons.
Tierney was more guarded in his opinion. He said he had got something in his head somehow or other that the Bill would never come to us in the House of Commons. So much for the chiefs in the Whig camp.* Thanet and I agreed afterwards as to their insanity. I dine with him and Cowper at Brooks’s to-day, and tomorrow at the house of the latter to meet the Derbys, &c. Western is gone to Fornham [the Duke of Norfolk’s] to-day. The Duke asked me to come with him.”

“Brooks’s, 2 o’clock, 26th August.

“I am just returned from the Lords, and their lordships have hampered themselves as with one of their own absurdities, that they have adjourned till Monday to consider how they are to get out of it. . . . I am at this moment the centre of at least a dozen lords. You may suppose it is a scrape when Wickedshifts Grey is at this moment grinning from ear to ear, and telling me he sees no way out of it but by the Lords adjourning the second reading of the bill for six months. Old Fitzwilliam tells me he thinks little of the chambermaid’s evidence; and, as to that, both Grey and King, think much less of it than I do. Certain it is that Mr. Attorney’s perfect incompetence to manage a case like this, added to the villainy of the Court, gives considerable—indeed a very great—advantage to the case of this, eternal fool, to call her [the Queen] by no worse a name. . . .”

collision between the Horse Guards and the mob, and despite a long record of gallant service in the field, Wilson was dismissed the army in 1821, but was reinstated on the accession of William IV.

* Nevertheless the chiefs were right—Grey in his resolution to give his verdict according to the evidence, Tierney in predicting that the Bill would never reach the Commons.

“House of Lords, 3 o’clock, 28th August.

“. . . I met Lady Charlotte Greville in the street yesterday, and walked a little with her, when I found her fury against Brougham to be perfectly unbounded. I told her her state of mind was everything I could wish, and so I left her. There is a report about, said to rest on good authority, that the King sent for the Duke of York yesterday, and that he wants to go to Hanover,* leaving the Duke Regent.

“House of Lords, 29th August, 5 o’clock.

“Here’s a capital scene such as I never saw before. Always keep in mind the point in discussion—viz. whether Brougham should have a little cross-examination now, and an unlimited one hereafter. This was conceded to him early on Saturday—refused yesterday, and to-day Harrowby begins by moving that, under the peculiar circumstances, Brougham shall have an unlimited cross-examination both now and hereafter. This motion was opposed by Lord Eldon, and a division has just taken place, when Harrowby’s motion was carried by 121 to 106. The three law lords—Eldon, Redesdale, and Manners—the two Royal Dukes—York and Clarence—and all the King’s friends were in the minority, and Sidmouth was the only other member of the Cabinet besides Eldon who voted against Harrowby’s motion. Our people of course voted with Harrowby. Was there ever such a state of things?. . .”

“House of Lords, 2 o’clock, 1st Sept., 1820.

The chienne Demont† turns out everything one could wish on her cross-examination. Her letters have been produced written to her sister living still in the Queen’s service. . . . They contain every kind of panegyric upon the Queen, and she often writes of a journal or diary she has kept of everything that has occurred during the whole of her service and travels

* George IV. was hereditary sovereign of Hanover as well as of Great Britain and Ireland.

† Former femme-de-chambre to the Princess of Wales (Queen Caroline), an important witness for the prosecution.

1819-20.]LOUISE DEMONT.315
with the Queen; the object of such journal being, as she says, to do the Queen justice, and to show how she was received, applauded, cherished, wherever she went. At length she writes—‘Judge of my astonishment at an event that happened to me the other day. A person called upon me at Lausanne, and said he wished to speak to me alone. I brought him up into my chamber: he gave me a letter: I broke the seal. It was a request that I would come immediately to England under the pretext of being a governess: that I should have the first protection: that it would make my fortune. True it is, there was no signature to the letter, but as a proof of its validity I had an immediate credit given me on a banker.’ The
Attorney-General here objected to this evidence. . . .”

“½ past 3.

“The House put a question to the Judges whether these letters could be read in evidence, and they decided they could not unless Demont admitted them to be her handwriting. They have just been put into her hands, and she has admitted them all to be hers. . . .”

“5 o’clock.

“Adjourned . . . a most infernally damaging day for the prosecution. . . .”

“House of Lords, 2 o’clock, 2nd Sept.

“The chienne Demont is still under her cross-examination, and is, if possible, fifty times nearer the devil to-day than she was yesterday. . . . I have told you, I believe, that the Bishops won’t support the Divorce part of the Bill, and that in consequence it is to be withdrawn; so that the title of the Bill ought to be—‘A Bill to declare the Queen a w——, and to settle her upon the King for life, because from his own conduct he is not entitled to a divorce.’”

“House of Lords, Sept. 4, 3 o’clock.

“Here’s a fellow examining who says he came on Saturday night with eleven others, so it can’t close so soon as I had thought. We are still in the dark as
to the Lugano devil being included in this arrival. He is the fellow
Brougham has always been the most afraid of: however, he has just told me there are such proofs of the high price his evidence is to cost, that he thinks he shall do for him. . . .”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

“Eleven witnesses examined to-day: much dirt and some damage certainly.”

“House of Lords, Sept. 6.

“. . . Do you know this bill will never pass! My belief is it will be abandoned on the adjournment. The entire middle order of people are against it, and are daily becoming more critical on the King and the Lords for carrying on this prosecution.”

“½ past two.

“By far the most infamous act that even this jury of the Lords ever committed has just been done by them. The Judges, after three hours’ consultation, decided that a particular question, proposed by Brougham, could not be put. Lord Buckingham has just put the same question thinking it would damage the Queen. No one objected. The answer was given, and compleatly the reverse of what Lord B. expected. Then Brougham rose and with great gravity said:—‘My lords, I humbly request your lordships to accept my thanks for having permitted a member of your own House to put a question which, only two hours ago, after great deliberation and consultation with the Judges, you refused to me.’ Not a word or a sound was heard in answer to this knock-down blow from Bruffam. He told me afterwards that it was by his own address and personal application to Lord Buckingham that the latter was induced to put the question. . . .”

“½ past 4.

“The evidence is closed—that is, all that is in England. Mr. Attorney has been making his application for an adjournment of a few days to give time for the Lugano witnesses to arrive. Brougham’s
objection to this has been the feeblest effort he has yet made, and Mr. Attorney is now replying. I suppose it will be granted, and this will fill up the measure of their lordships’ iniquity.

“P.S.—Erskine has made the most beautiful speech possible: Grey an excellent one: Eldon and Liverpool are shook, and I think the application will be refused.”

“Brooks’s, Sept. 6, 12 o’clock at night.

“I have been dining to-day at Lord Sefton’s with the Duke of Bedford, Lords Grey, Thanet, Cowper and Foley, Brougham, &c. Grey was a decided lunatic at dinner, and so Brougham and I settled him in a walk we had together. Brougham is quite aware of the prodigious part he has to play upon this approaching speech of his, and I have been trying all I can to make him connect himself with public opinion as far as he can consistently with propriety and the dignity of his situation.

“House of Lords, 12 o’clock, 7th Sept.

“The first thing done to-day was Mr. Attorney coming forward and stating that within the preceding half hour he had received letters from abroad, stating that the journey of the Lugano witnesses was unavoidably delayed, and that under such circumstances he should not persist in asking for time. So, after this infernal lie, he said his case was closed. . . . Mr. Solicitor is now summing up.

“Here’s a breeze! The Solicitor having finished, Lauderdale moved that the Queen’s counsel be asked if they were ready to go on, upon which Lord Lonsdale begged to state that, before such question was put, it would be a great satisfaction to him and others to learn that the divorce part of the Bill was to be given up; upon which Lord Liverpool said if it was the wish of the religious part of the House and of the community that this clause should be withdrawn, his Majesty had no personal wish in having it made part of the bill. . . . Well! Grey made a speech for the divorce part remaining! and Donoughmore is now asserting with great fury that Liverpool has given the King’s consent without his leave.”

“8th Sept.

“. . . It is said Ministers are quite determined not to let Brougham open his case now. For the first time, he bullied the Lords a little too much yesterday; so much so, that he has turned Carnarvon quite violently against him; which is a very great pity, because he is so eminently useful.

“I had a most agreeable day yesterday at Cowper’s, the company being the Derbys, Jerseys, Lansdownes, Grey, Thanet and Erskine. It was my good fortune to sit next the latter, and he was as lively and as much the soul of the company at 72 as he could have been at 32. . . . You know the Queen went down the river yesterday. I saw her pass the H. of Commons on the deck of her state barge; the river and the shores of it were then beginning to fill. Erskine, who was afterwards at Blackfriars Bridge, said he was sure there were 200,000 people collected to see her. . . . There was not a single vessel in the river that did not hoist their colours and man their yards for her, and it is with the greatest difficulty that the watermen on the Thames, who are all her partisans, are kept from destroying the hulk which lies off the H. of Commons to protect the witnesses in Cotton Garden. . . . I dine to-day at Sefton’s: only Brougham and myself. . . .”

“House of Lords, 8th Sept., 1 o’clock.

“. . . Liverpool is now speaking against Grey, and when the debate is to end I know not, but Brougham has just called me out to consult with me. The Queen, backed by Wood, is all for going on de suite, and, as Brougham thinks, the decided plan is to fling her counsel overboard. In this situation of peril for the idiot, Brougham thinks of asking only till Monday fortnight to be ready to go on with his defence. . . .”

“Brooks’s, Sept. 9th.

“The House of Lords is adjourned to Tuesday three weeks, the 3rd of October. You can form no conception of the rage of the Lords at Brougham fixing this time: it interferes with everything—
pheasant shooting, Newmarket, &c., &c. . . .
Grey is just set out for Howick, the most furious of the set. . . . Brougham’s chaise is now at the door to carry him home to Brougham Castle. He has performed miracles, and the reasons he has just been giving me for fixing the time he has done, shew his understanding (if one doubted it) to be of the very first order. The Queen is delighted at their going on so soon: she clapped her hands with delight when he communicated it to her last night. . . .’

Mr. Western, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“Buxton, 10th Sept.

“. . . The abandonment of the divorce clause forms the ultimate climax of baseness, cowardice, folly, &c. It is a Bill of Pains and Penalties upon the King, to expose him to the most dire disgrace that ever was inflicted upon mortal man—to enact that, whereas his wife is the most abandoned of women, he is a fit associate for her! Oh, there never was the like!!! . . .”

Henry Brougham, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“Brougham, 14 Sept., 1820.
“Dear C.,

“. . . Either you or Bennet should by all means ask a question respecting the two late outrages in Scotland committed by Sir Alexr. Gordon and his son Mr. James Gordon. These two worthies being at Crossmichael church one Sunday, and observing the parson, Mr. Jeffrey, pray for the Queen, they caused a vestry (kirk session) to be held instanter; and, there being no further notice, they two and the parson were the only members present; whereupon, by a majority of 2 to 1, they recorded a censure on him and an order against ever again praying for the Queen by name! The Presbytery, being the ordinary ecclesl. jurisdn., immediately took it up, revised the whole proceeding, and have ordered the parties to appear before them—I suppose to be censured.
Again: the son, James Gordon, being Col. of a Yeomanry corps lately on duty, the chaplain,
Mr. Gillespie (whom I have known for many years, and who is a man of admirable character and perfect loyalty), preached a very loyal discourse, but prayed for the Q. The Col. put him under arrest! The ecclesl. authorities have taken this matter up, and I suppose (indeed it is quite clear) must take Gillespie’s part strongly. But why do I specify these two matters? Because Jas. Gordon is a judge in Scotland, and an ecclesiastical one: viz. one of the Commissaries who are the 3 Judges of the supreme Consistorial Court at Edinr. . . . You are aware that the Scotch Church acknowledge no head but J. Christ—utterly denies the King’s or Parlt.’s right to interfere in any respect, and rejects with the utmost indignation all attempts (which, since the aboln. of Episcopacy, indeed, have never been made) to dictate, or even hint at, any form of prayers, each parson being left wholly to himself, except as far as the Church Courts (viz.; Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly) may regulate their doctrine and discipline. Now a question ought to be asked on this Gordon’s conduct. . . .”

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Brooks’s, 13 Sept.

“. . . Do you know they say the King is intent upon turning out Lord Hertford to make room for Conyingham as Lord Chamberlain, and Lord Cholmondeley to make way for Lord Roden. Was there ever such insanity at such a time? It is said the Ministers have exacted a promise from him not to make the first change, at least pending the trial. In writing the last sentence, I heard a noise of hurraing and shouting in the street; so I ran out to see. It was, I may say, the Navy of England marching to Brandenburgh House with an address to the Queen. I have seen nothing like this before—nothing approaching to it. There were thousands of seamen, all well dressed, all sober—the best-looking, the finest men you could imagine. Every man had a new white
silk or satin cockade in his hat. They had a hundred colours, at least, or pieces of silk, with sentiments upon them, such as ‘Protection to the Innocent,’ &c. M’Donald asked one of them how many there were, to which he answered very civilly—‘I don’t know, exactly, sir, but we are many thousands, and should have been many more, but we would not let any man above forty come, because we have so far to walk.’ Remember what I say—this procession decides the fate of the Queen. When the seamen take a part, the soldiers can’t fail to be shaken.”

“House of Lords, October 3rd, 1 o’clock.

“. . . Brougham has been at it nearly two hours and a half, and may continue an hour or two more, for aught I know; but it is infinitely too hot to stay in the crowd, so I have just escaped. . . . I think I may say he was as good as I expected. . . .”

“4 o’clock.

“He has been at it again two hours, and will evidently be so till five—criticism in detail upon the evidence for the prosecution—damned dull and damned hot, so I have been walking about amongst my friends on Westminster Bridge.”

“House of Lords, Oct. 4, ½ past 1.

Brougham has just finished his opening. . . . I never heard him anything like the perfection he has displayed in all ways. . . . In short, if he can prove what he has stated in his speech, I for one believe she is innocent, and the whole case a conspiracy. . . . He concluded with a most magnificent address to the Lords—an exhortation to them to save themselves—the Church—the Crown—the Country, by their decision in favour of the Queen. This last appeal was made with great passion, but without a particle of rant. . . . I consider myself infinitely overpaid by these two hours and a half of Brougham, for all the time and money it has cost me to be here, and almost for my absence from all of you. . . .”

“Oct. 5th.

“. . . I had a very agreeable day at Powell’s with the Duke of Norfolk, who called for me here, and we walked there together. We went to Brooks’s at night, where, as you may suppose, the monde talked of nothing but Brougham and his fame, and the comers-in from White’s said the same feeling was equally strong there. . . . [The speech] not only astonished but has shaken the aristocracy, though Lord Granville did tell me at parting this morning not to be too confident of that, for that the H. of Lords was by far the stupidest and most obstinate collection of men that could be selected from all England. This, I think, from a peer himself, and old virtuoso Stafford’s brother, was damned fair. . . . General St. Leger was called, and was only useful as a very ornamental witness. . . . Then came Lord Guilford, who is the most ramshackle fellow you ever saw. He is a kind of non mi ricordo likewise.* He seems, however, to have been a pretty frequent guest at her Majesty’s table . . . has dined more than once with Bergami at the Queen’s table and that he never saw the slightest impropriety. . . . But the witness of all witnesses has just closed her examination in chief—Lady Charlotte Lindsay. In your life you never heard such testimony as hers in favour of the Queen—the talent, the perspicuity, the honesty of it. . . .”

“House of Lords, Oct. 6th.

“Wonders will never cease. Upon my soul! this Queen must be innocent after all. Lady Charlotte went on in her cross-examination, and could never be touched; tho’ she was treated most infamously—so much so as to make her burst out crying. There was a ticklish point about a letter from her brother, advising her to give up her place under the Queen, which [letter] she said she could not find. The fact

* Referring to the evidence of some of the Italian witnesses for the prosecution, who in cross-examination so often answered, Non mi ricordo—“I don’t remember”—that it passed into a saying.

is, her husband,
Lindsay, who is in the greatest distress, has absolutely sold her correspondence on this subject to the Treasury. She told this to Brougham himself under the most solemn injunction of secrecy, and he has this instant told it to me. When, therefore, Brougham mentioned loudly the name of Maule as a person to be called as a witness, the Chancellor decided the letter should not be produced—this Maule being the Solicitor to the Treasury, who bought the correspondence of Lindsay. Was there ever villainy equal to this? Eldon and Liverpool had some sharp words on this occasion in the House. Thank God, the villains get out of temper with each other! . . . Gell, cross-examined and examined by the Lords, left everything still more triumphant for the Queen; so much so that Pelham and a few other bishops are gone home to cut their throats. Lord Enniskillen has just said in my hearing that the Ministers ought to be damned for coming out with such a case. . . .

“House of Lords, 9th Oct., 10 o’clock.

“. . . The town is literally drunk with joy at this unparalleled triumph of the Queen. There is no doubt now in any man’s mind, except Lauderdale’s, that the whole thing has been a conspiracy for money. The Ministers were down at Windsor yesterday, taking with them the ould customer Lonsdale, and a new one in the Duke of Rutland. . . .”

“4 o’clock.

Captn. Flynn of the polacre is just call’d. He is mad, and in trying to do too much has, for the present, done harm; but it will be all set right to-morrow.”

“House of Lords, 2 o’clock, October 10th.

“This cursed Flynn is still going on. He has perjured himself three or four times over, and his evidence and himself are both gone to the devil. He is evidently a crack-brained sailor. . . . he has fainted away once, and been obliged to be carried out.”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

“. . . Lady Jersey stopt me in the street to reproach me for never coming to her, so I went last night and found all the political grandees there. Brougham, of course, was one, and he and I came away together. . . .”

“Oct. 12th, one o’clock.

“By Jove, my dear, we are coming to critical times, such as no man can tell the consequences of. It is quite understood that the Lords—at the suit of the Ministers—are resolved to pass this Bill, upon the sole point of the Queen being admitted to have slept under the tent on board the polacre, while Bergami slept there likewise. . . . I predict, with the most perfect confidence, that commotion and bloodshed must follow this enormous act of injustice, should it finally be committed; but (tho’ I stand alone in this opinion) I will not and do not believe the Bill will pass the Lords. I have this instant seen Brougham; . . . he says he means to call the Duchess of Beaufort, Ladies Harrowby, Bathurst, their husbands, &c., to prove their intimacy with the Queen till the Regency. He means, too, that the Queen shall bring down a statement of all her sufferings, and of everything relating to the Royal family, from her arrival in England. It is now copying, and she is to come down and deliver it to the Chancellor to be read before the Bill passes. Brougham says everything that has happened yet is absolutely nothing in effect compared with what this statement will do.*

“House of Lords, one o’clock, 13th October.

“. . . A question arose as to a point of evidence, and whether a particular question might be put; upon which Carnarvon fired such a shot into the whole concern, and called the bill such names as you never heard before. He made, in short, a most capital speech, and the thing exactly wanted at this period

* Subsequent note by Mr. Creevey.—“Why all or any of these threats were never put into execution remains for Mr. Brougham to explain.”

of the case; but alas! my lords
Grey and Lansdowne and Holland were perfectly mute: they dared not criticise so roughly the measures of a man whom they hope so soon to call their Master. . . .”

“3 o’clock.

“Here’s a breeze of the first order! The last witness having ended, Rastelli was called back; when behold! it turned out he had been sent out of the country, instead of staying to be indicted for perjury. . . . Liverpool admits it was scandalous to send him away, but that it was unknown to the Government. Holland and Lansdowne have made furious speeches upon the occasion, and Eldon is now speaking. . . . I dine at Holland House to-day. . . . We shall nave a breeze on Tuesday in the Commons. The base devils who voted against me the last time are wanting me to make the same motion on Tuesday, and they will support me. . . .”

Duke of Norfolk to Mr. Creevey.
“Fornham, 13 Octr., 1820.
“Dear Creevey,

“Are you really become the champion of the H. of Lds., and suppose there is any atrocity they are not ready to vote for? For my own part, if they do pass this horrible Bill, I shall no longer consider it a disgrace or a hardship to be excluded* from a seat in their House; but, on the contrary, rejoice that I have not been implicated in so foul a crime. Is it possible that the slight evidence they have for the tent scene alone can establish their whole case? I am anxious beyond measure to hear the result. Ly. Petre desires to be kindly remembered, and we hope you will come down. If by any miracle the Bill should not pass, what a jolification we will have!

“Yours sincerely,

* As a Roman Catholic.

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“York St., 16th Oct.

“. . . I dined yesterday at Ridley’s with Grey, Lansdowne, Rosslyn, Sefton, Brougham and various others. Grey is looking horribly ill. I dine at Lord Derby’s to-day.”

“House of Lords, 2 o’clock.

“We are now evidently going to have a splashing debate. The same witness that we had on Saturday has deposed to another person besides Rastelli, of the name of Raganti, having attempted to bribe him to come and give evidence against the Queen. He not only offered him money to come, but told him the particular thing to swear to. Mr. Attorney and Solicitor have objected to this as evidence. Brougham has taken the opportunity of firing the most capital broadside into the whole concern as a conspiracy. . . . A damned flat debate going forward instead of a splashing one. Grey has moved that the examination shall proceed, and Liverpool opposed it, but has let out most clearly to my mind that all the Italian evidence is to be flung overboard. So much for the Milan commission! . . . I find that Hutchinson and Donoughmore were with the King at Windsor to-day, so Liverpool’s speech is accounted for. It is the first breakdown.”

“House of Lords, 17th Oct., 1 o’clock.

“. . . I went in from the Derbys last night to ‘Sally’ Jersey’s, and it was really very agreeable—only ‘Sally,’ Madame Lieven, Lady Eliz. Stuart and Madame Flahault, with four or five men besides myself.

“The House of Commons meets at ½ past three to-day, and I must contrive somehow or other to have a brush there. . . .”

“House of Lords, 18th Oct., 1 o’clock.

“Alas poor Cole!* I had always a misgiving she would get her death from me, and last night I fear the presentiment was nearly verified. It was a great deal too contemptible to hear the leader of the Whigs, with this damnable Bill of Pains and Penalties before his eyes, meet a question of adjournment with the ridiculous amendment of a shorter adjournment, and without uttering a syllable upon the Bill itself or the circumstances of the time. I was compelled, therefore, to take the field, as no one else seemed inclined to shew. I had not pronounced two sentences before one and all of his troops deserted him. The roar that resounded from every part of the benches behind him (which were very full) was as extraordinary to me as it must have been agreeable to him. . . . As to the speech itself, being right and absolutely necessary to be spoken were its principal merits. I lost my head in the middle of it, and thought I should have been obliged to sit down, tho’ I never was so cheered during any speech I have made in Parliament. Sefton overheard a conversation between Cole and Duncannon at night, in which the latter said—‘Had you come to town a day earlier, an arrangement might have been made, and all

* Note by Mr. Creevey.—“The reason I call Tierney by the name of ‘Cole’ is this. It used to be his constant practice in making his speeches in Parliament to bear particular testimony to his own character—to his being a ‘plain man,’ ‘ an honest man,’ or something of that kind. Having heard him at this work several times, it occurred to me that he had formed himself upon that distinguished model Mrs. Cole, an old lady in one of Foote’s farces, who presided over a female establishment in Covent Garden. Mrs. Cole was always indulging herself with flattering references to her own character.—‘For fourteen years,’ said she, ‘have I lived in the Garden, and no one has said black was the white of my eye. For fourteen years, did I say? Aye, for sixteen years come Lammas Day have I paid scot and lot in the parish of St. Bride’s, and no one has said, “Mrs. Cole, why did you so?” excepting twice I was taken before Mr. Justice Duval, and three times to the Round House.’ Brougham was for many years quite enamoured of the resemblance of the portrait. He christened Abercromby Young Cole, and the whole shabby party ‘the Coles;’ but he has become much more prudent and respectful of late.”

this scene avoided.’—‘No,’ said Cole, ‘I am confident nothing would have stopt
Creevey’s mouth.’ Poor thing! she has not been here to-day, so I suppose she has returned to the sea . . . Lord Donoughmore had a curious conversation with Sefton yesterday, in which the former said the Ministers ought to be impeached for having brought the Bill forward—so compleatly had they deceived him as to their case. He mentioned his visit to Windsor last Sunday, and the difficulty he and his brother had in making the King see that the Bill would never go down. One of the royal arguments was:—‘Why, Lord Sefton has betted Lord Thanet 10 to 1 that the Bill will pass the Lords, and as Lord Sefton is known to be so strongly against the Bill, surely this is quite convincing.’ . . . It was perfectly true that this bet had been made by Sefton with Thanet, which of course greatly enhances the merit of the royal argument. . . .”

“House of Lords, Oct. 19.

“. . . Most important! McDonald has just returned to me. He has seen and talked with the Archbishop of York, and it is not only true that Lord Stafford has become the strenuous opposer of the Bill, but he has waited upon Lord Harrowby to state his conviction that the Bill must be given up. You know McDonald is nephew both to the Archbishop and Lord Stafford. . . .”

“House of Lords, Oct. 20, 1 o’clock.

“. . . Having said that Brougham had made up his mind not to examine Oldi and Mariette, let me say why; so that, if you keep my account of this trial, posterity may know what the Queen’s counsel really thought of his client—a very rare thing to know and in this case, quite authentic. Denman, Lushington, Tindal and Wilde are all decidedly for calling both Oldi and Mariette; Brougham has no doubt of the fidelity of these witnesses, and of their perfect belief in the Queen’s innocence; but he is equally sure that the villainy of these judges—the Lords—would inflict a persecution of two days’ examination upon each of these witnesses, and, from the experience of their
monstrous injustice in raising such diabolical inferences from admissions so natural and innocent as those of so capital a witness as Howman was, or from the rambling imbecility of
Flynn, he dare not trust these foreign women to the same ordeal. All this I had from Brougham last night. He told me, too, as he has done before, that, altho’ he was in possession of many circumstances unfavorable in appearance to the Queen, which were not known to me, he did nevertheless believe her to be compleatly innocent—in direct opposition to his former sentiments; and that, furthermore, should this Bill ever come to the House of Commons, he will then, being no longer in the character of her counsel, take an opportunity of declaring, upon his honor as a gentleman, his sincere belief in her innocence.*

“I had a very agreeable day at the Derbys yesterday, as indeed it always is there—the Fortescues, Darnleys, Kings and Bennet. To-day I dine at Sefton’s with Brougham. . . . Holland House is the only place I have heard of as being in a state of rage at my attack on Cole.† . . . A division has just taken place, when Liverpool and our people beat the Chancellor‡ and his by 122 to 79; but Grey, with his usual candour, has carried an amendment to Petty’s§ motion, that in my belief, and with such a villain as Powell to deal with, will make the motion perfectly nugatory. Grey’s conduct throughout this business has been most injurious to the Queen, her counsel and her cause.”

“House of Lords, Oct. 21st, 1 o’clock.

“Before I begin with the trial, let me tell you a story. On my arrival here at 10 this morning, I perceived a black man of an extraordinary appearance in Tom Tyrwhitt’s‖ box at the other end of the House, and another black by his side, both in bushy black wigs. Upon enquiry, I found it was no less a person

* He did so on February 5, 1821.

Mr. Tierney.

Lord Eldon.

§ Lord Lansdowne.

Sir Thomas Tyrwhitt, Black Rod.

than the King of New Zealand and his Grand Chamberlain; and it was presently reported that they were white, and not black men, and that the black shade was merely the effect and impression of tattooing.
Western and I went round, and got near enough to touch his Majesty; when I found his royal face to be one of the very finest specimens of carving I have ever beheld. The Chamberlain’s face was fair: the sunflowers on it were highly respectable; but the King’s nose, which surpassed the average size, was one blaze of stars and planets. The groundwork of their faces, of which a mighty small portion remained without ornament, was evidently fair, but had been painted a deep orange colour. . . . I just learn it was the Minister of the King, and not his Chamberlain; and also that they are both just entered at some college in Cambridge, where I flatter myself these dingy academicians will do honor both to themselves and my favorite University. . . .

Sefton called yesterday on his uncle Lord Harrington, who is confined with the gout. In the course of the visit, to Sefton’s surprise and, as you may suppose, delight, Lord Harrington said—‘I shall be well enough to go and give my vote against this infamous Bill.’ Upon Sefton leading him on, the other said—‘After the evidence of Lady Charlotte Lindsay, Mr. Craven and Sir Wm. Gell, no man with the pretensions to being a gentleman ought to have gone a step further with the Bill.’—Well done, old Gold Stick!”

“House of Lords, Oct. 23rd, 2 o’clock.

Premièrement, let me bring up the rear of my narrative respecting the King of New Zealand. It is confidently reported that en derrière both his Majesty and his Minister are much more profusely decorated with ornamental carving than on their faces—but you’ll not quote me!

Sefton told me last night of a conversation he had had with Thanet. It seems Lady Holland had complained to the latter in the strongest terms of my conduct to Tierney on Tuesday, and had stated that Cole was hurt by it to the last degree.—‘What did Thanet do or say?’ says I.—‘Why,’ says Sefton, ‘he
1819-20.]MR. DENMAN SUMS UP.331
snorted out into a loud laugh—said you was quite right, and that the Whigs were little better than old apple-women.’—This was a great relief to me; tho’ I was quite sure from Thanet’s manner all was right; but I shd. certainly have felt myself bound to surrender my seat had we differed about it. . . . Yesterday I dined at Brooks’s with
Ossulston: to-day I dine at the Derbys, with Brougham, Denman, the Seftons, and a huge party, I believe. . . . Grey, according to custom, has done all the harm he could. He is more provoking in all he does than these villains of Ministers themselves. However, thank God the case for the Queen is closed, and all looks well.”

“House of Lords, Oct. 24th, 2 o’clock.

“. . . Denman begun to sum up, and is now engaged in so doing. Their mighty case, you see therefore, is now finished, and a miracle no doubt it must appear to after times that all these charges of an adulterous intercourse which have been got up with so much secrecy—that begun six years ago and continued three years—that have had absolute power and money without end to support them, have been one by one demonstrably disproved by witnesses unimpeachable. . . . This admitted fact of the Queen sleeping on deck under the awning, and Bergami doing so likewise, under all the explanatory circumstances of the case, is the sole foundation of the Bill. . . . And now then—will the Lords pass the Bill? I say No—I say it is impossible: and yet something the villains of Ministers must do to save their own credit. . . . The Duke of Portland told Lord Foley he was one of 60 peers who usually supported the Government, and who would vote against the Bill. This Foley told me himself. I fear this is too high an estimate, but the Duke of Portland himself is a most fair and honorable person.”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

Denman’s last two hours have been brilliant. His parallel case of Nero and his wife Octavia was perfect in all its parts. . . . I am just going to dinner at Sefton’s, and then to go and see Cymbeline with him and Brougham.”

“Brooks’s, Wednesday morning, ½ past 12.

“. . . Lady Fitzwilliam goes to pay her respects to the Queen to-morrow. Lord Fitzwilliam has been here to-night, quite pleased to tell of his wife’s intention. . . . Lady Jersey goes likewise. . . . Sir Willoughby Gordon has just told me he was quite sure he saw 40,000 people, with banners, pass through Piccadilly to-day on their way to the Queen. A division from another body passed us by on the water to the same destination, and saluted us with cannon as they passed.”

“York St., 26th Oct.

“. . . I dined at Lambton’s yesterday en famille. Grey (who stays there) dined at Billy Gloucester’s, and came in before dinner in his prettiest manner to say to me how sorry he was he dined out. Apropos to Grey, he has somewhat made up to me for his past conduct by a reply he made to Liverpool. The day before yesterday, at the rising of the House, the latter came across to Grey, and, with the usual muggery they are always applying to him, asked him what adjournment he thought would be long enough for the consideration of the evidence, between the finishing by the counsel and the 2nd reading; upon which Grey, in his rudest manner, said he did not see the necessity for any adjournment at all, as there was not a tittle of evidence to support the Bill! Our people, who all heard this, were delighted with it. . . . Grey expressed the same sentiment to myself yesterday in the strongest manner. . . . What must the private tutor, Lauderdale, say to this? I wonder when Lauderdale and idiots like himself will begin to think of the situation into which this infamous Bill has thrown this town. Every Wednesday, the scene which caused such alarm at Manchester is repeated under the very nose of Parliament and all the constituted authorities, and in a tenfold degree more alarming. A certain number of regiments of the efficient population of the town march on each of these days in a regular lock step, four or five abreast—banners flying—music playing. . . . I should like any one to tell me what is to come next if this organised army loses its temper. . . .”

1819-20.] NEARING THE END. 333
“House of Lords, 28th Oct., 2 o’clock.

“. . . Grey, Rosslyn, the Lansdownes, &c., dined at the Duke of Gloucester’s on Wednesday, when the Duchess after dinner talked to Lady Lansdowne about this trial, and said:—‘It was a very foolish, and indeed a very wrong thing to have got into, but the King had been greatly deceived upon the subject.’ My authority for this is Lord John Russell, who told me that Lady Lansdowne told him. This is just as it should be: the gay deceiver has a good prospect. I wonder who he is. Is it Leach or Eldon?

“I’ll now tell you another story, perhaps not unconnected with this. Yesterday and to-day I have walked to Kensington Gardens before I came here; and to-day I met Lady Conyngham and Lady Elizabeth* walking with a footman behind them. You know the palpable, unqualified cut they have treated me with these last two years, but to-day it was quite another thing. No, no! an old acquaintance was not to pass her in that way: had there been any bystanders, they might have thought she was asking alms of me. She was evidently dying for me to turn about with her to talk politicks, and I was an idiot not to do it. I might have learnt from her how the dear King had been deceived. . . . Mr. Attorney has just finished, and the Solicitor has taken the field. He has announced that he shall finish to-day, and then the House will adjourn till Thursday. The object of this adjournment is a last effort to bring this noble jury to their collars; but it is too late—the charm for once is broken. . . .”

“3 o’clock.

“. . . Mr. Solicitor is to have two hours more on Monday morning. A more vulgar, bombastical, blackguard chap I never in my life heard. . . .”

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock, Monday, 30th October.

“. . . Thursday is the day fixed for battle. Calcraft is the greatest croaker; his list has been a majority of 40 for the Bill. He has reduced it to 35, and with

* Her daughter, who married the 10th Earl of Huntly, and died without issue in 1839.

this majority he thinks the Government will carry the Bill, and go with it to the Commons. . . .
Holland has just come to me and had a long conversation with me. He has taken great pains with his list too. . . . He gives a majority of 30 for the Bill as the maximum, and 15 as the minimum; but he is quite certain of the Bill not passing the Lords. . . . Lord Hutchinson offers to bet that 200 Peers will not vote. I never saw such a beautiful sight in my life as the Brass Founders’ procession to the Queen to-day. I had no notion there had been so many beautiful brass ornaments in all the world. Their men in armour, both horse and foot, were capital; nor was their humour amiss. The procession closed with a very handsome crown borne in state as a present to the Queen, preceded by a flag with the words—‘The Queen’s Guard are Men of Metal.’ I am quite sure there must have been 100,000 people in Piccadilly, all in the most perfect order. I am very much pleased that Hutchinson has taken to me again. It is quite his own doing, and I am to meet him at dinner at Rogers’s* on Wednesday.”

Mr. Western, M.P., to Mr. Creevey.
“Brighton, October 29th.

“. . . Pray read Cobbet’s attack upon Denman’s speech. He is a foul-mouthed, malignant dog; but there is so much point in his criticism, that one cannot help admitting there is generally some truth in his remarks, and I certainly agree in his remarks on the tact of this speech. There is a great deal of bombast nonsense of quotations from the devil knows where, finishing the whole—‘Go and sin no more.’ And the Lords to say this! . . .”

Mr. Creevey to Miss Ord.
“Brooks’s, Nov. 1.

“. . . Here is Holland, asking me in the most humble tone if I really think the Bill will pass the Lords. Grey, it seems, thinks so, and it is the fashion to say so to-day. My opinion is unshaken that it can’t.”

* Samuel Rogers, the poet and banker.

“House of Lords, 2 o’clock, 2nd November.

Eldon begun this morning, and it was expected he would have made a great masterly judicial summing up; instead of which, he spoke for an hour and a quarter only, and a more feeble argument for his own vote I never heard in all my life. He begun by intimating very clearly that the preamble of the Bill was to be altered, and the divorce part given up: then, without reserve or shame, he abandoned Miocci and Demont, and, in truth, all the filth of his own green bag, and all the labours of the Milan commission. Howman’s evidence and the admitted fact of Bergami’s sleeping on the deck under the same awning as the Queen, was his sheet anchor. . . . He said he was perfectly convinced of her guilt, and he further said that no one who had not the same opinion ought to vote for the second reading. Erskine followed, and had spoken for about three quarters of an hour, when he fainted away, and was carried out of the House; since when, that villain Lauderdale has been speaking.

“Yesterday and today have altered most materially the state of public opinion as to the fate of this diabolical Bill. The cursed rats are said to have returned most rapidly to their old quarters, and the ministerial majority is rising in the market to 40, 45 and 50. It is added, too, that the Bill is certainly to pass, and to be with us on the 23rd. I will not give my assent to any one of these reports till I have ocular proof of their being true; at the same time, with such rogues and madmen as one has to speculate upon, it is being almost mad oneself to expect anything being done that is right . . . .”

“Brooks’s, evening.

Primrose,* who is a government man, and one of the 16 Scotch Peers, made a very good speech after Lauderdaleagainst the Bill. . . . I have just been over Norfolk House with the duke, and a capital magnificent shop it is. I dined yesterday at Rogers’s, with Hutchinson, Brougham, Denman, &c.: to-morrow with Foley. Seymour Bathurst has just told Lambton

* The 4th Earl of Rosebery, grandfather of the present earl.

that the Bill will not go beyond the 2nd reading. God send this may be true!

“House of Lords, 3rd Nov., ½ past 3.

“I have not heard all Lord Grey’s speech, being obliged to go into the City, which I am truly sorry for, as what I did hear was quite of the highest order —beautiful—magnificent—all honor and right feeling, with the most powerful argument into the bargain. There is nothing approaching this damned fellow in the kingdom, when he mounts his best horse. . . . Lord Liverpool is now answering Lord Grey, and is as bad as one would wish him to be.”

“House of Lords, 4th November, 2 o’clock.

“. . . I must say, since my affair with Tierney on Wednesday week his behaviour has been perfect: not so that of Young Cole,* who is now at the same table with me, and would not for the world turn his beautiful eyes towards me.”

“House of Lords, 6th Nov., 2 o’clock.

“. . . Lord Lansdowne finished his speech in the very first rate style . . . since then the speakers against the Bill have been the Duke of Somerset, Lords Enniskillen, Howard of Effingham, de Clifford, Grantham, Stafford and Calthorpe. The speakers for the Bill have been the Dukes of Athol and Northumberland, and Lord Grenville is now speaking on the same side; but, thank God, he comes too late. . . . Old Stafford uttered an opinion that is worth ten votes at least in the H. of Commons. He made no doubt of the Bill being lost in the H. of Commons, and that then there was an end of the Constitution. It never can come to the H. of Commons, by God! That little chap de Clifford is an agreeable surprise. He is such a cursed Queen-hater that we always calculated upon his being for the Bill. We had a most agreeable dinner yesterday at Brooks’s—Fitzwilliam, Grey, Cowper, Norfolk, Jersey, Thanet, Albemarle—and, in short, 17 of us. Grey was all

* The Hon. James Abercromby, M.P.

1819-20.]THE DIVISION.337
good humour and gentleness, and I had great pleasure in petting him—abusing him at the same time for all his palaver with
Liverpool and Eldon, particularly the latter. . . . If you could see little Barny* with me you would say it was almost too much. Every day at the rising of the House he comes regularly to ask me to let him walk up with me, and so we do. At other times he is equally in pursuit of me. He wants me very much to let him take me a little tour with him to shew me Arundel, &c., &c. He wants me, too, to dine with him at Dowr. ‘July’s’ to-day, but I shall do no such thing. I dine at Ferguson’s.

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

“All is over—that is with the 2nd reading—123 for the Bill and 95 against it—leaving a majority for the Bill of 28 only. This is fatal. Eleven Bishops voted for it, and the Archbishop of York† alone against it. I am delighted the young Duke of Richmond‡ voted against it. The other curious persons on the same side were Lords Bath, Mansfield, Bagot, Plymouth, Amherst, Delawar, Dartmouth, Enniskillen, Egremont, Audley, &c., &c. . . .”

“House of Lords, Nov. 7, 2 o’clock.

“Our first step this morning was Lord Dacre presenting a protest from the Queen against the proceedings of yesterday. . . . This occasioned a short discussion, upon form only; excepting, indeed, another attempt from the Duke of Newcastle in favor of himself, in which, according to his practice, he distinguished himself as a d——d fool. . . and received his final castigation from Grey. . . . It is supposed the Government have not made up their minds as to what course they are to take and that to-day has been used by them merely as a jaw for time. I had a very good-humoured nod from Wellington this morning while the people in the Park were hooting him.”

* The Duke of Norfolk.

Right Rev. Edward Venables Vernon.

‡ The 5th Duke, father of the present peer.


“The House has been up these two hours, a division having taken place upon the question whether the divorce clause should be part of the Bill. In favor of this 129 voted, including all our people: against it there were 53, including every one of the Ministers, and all the Bishops but three. Was there ever such a spectacle! . . . In ordinary times a Government would instantly abandon a measure over which they had no controul; there is an end, however, here to speculating upon men’s conduct. . . . And now let me give you a little joke of mine which is very favorably received. Many of us are invited to dine at Guildhall to-morrow by very large cards of invitation from the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs; so, having procured a card of equal dimensions, I send it to Lord Kensington with this alteration only in the style and contents—‘Messrs. Gog and Magog present their compts., &c., &c., and request the pleasure of his lordships’ company at Guildhall to partake with them of a Baron of Beef.’

“Brooks, Nov. 9.

“. . . Castlereagh got roughly handled at Covent Garden last night; so much so, as to be obliged to decamp from the house. Erskine was greatly applauded. . . .”

“Brooks, Nov. 10, 3 o’clock..

Three times three! if you please, before your read a word further. The Bill is gone, thank God! to the devil. Their majority was brought down to 9—108 to 99; and then the dolorous Liverpool came forward and struck. He moved that his own Bill be read this day six months. You may well suppose the state we are all in. The Queen was in the House at the time, but Brougham sent her off instantly. . . . The state of the town is beyond everything. I wish to God you could see Western. He is close by my side, but has not uttered yet̶such is his suprise.”

York Street, 11th Nov.

“I was a bad boy for the first time last night, and drank an extra bottle of claret with Foley, Dundas,
Western, &c., &c., in the midst of our brilliant illuminations at Brooks’s: not that I was the least screwy, but it has made me somewhat nervous. . . . We could distinctly see there were high words between Liverpool and Eldon before the former struck his colours, and when he moved the further consideration that day six months, Eldon answered with a very distinct and audible ‘Not content.’ It is quite impossible any human being could have disgraced himself more than the Duke of Clarence. When his name was called in the division on the 3rd reading, he leaned over the rail of the gallery as far into the House as he could, and then halloed—‘Content,’ with a yell that would quite have become a savage. The Duke of York followed with his ‘Content’ delivered with singular propriety. . . . It must always be remembered to the credit of our hereditary aristocracy that a decided majority voted against this wicked Bill. It was the two sets of Union Peers* and these villains of the Church† that nearly destroyed for ever the character of the House of Lords. However, thank God it is no worse.

“I have said nothing to you of my City feast. . . . My attention was directed to a much more splendid object‡—the Princess Olivia of Cumberland.§ No one can have any doubts of the royalty of her birth. She is the very image of our Royal family. Her person is upon the model of the Princess Elizabeth,‖

* The Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland.

† The Bishops.

‡ Than Madame Oldi, whom he has described.

§ This remarkable woman, Olive Wilmot Serres, presented a petition to the House of Commons, 14th July, 1820, setting forth that she was the legitimate daughter of William, Duke of Cumberland, second son of George II., and claiming recognition as such. She was the daughter of a house painter in Warwick named Wilmot, and married a foreigner named Serres, by profession a painter. Her striking resemblance to the royal family seems to have convinced many persons of the truth of her story, which was totally unsupported by any valid evidence. [See Annual Register, vol. lxii. p. 331; and vol. xliii. p. 150.]

‖ Third daughter of George III., married in 1818 to Frederick, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg.

only at least three times her size. She wore the most brilliant rose-coloured satin gown you ever saw, with fancy shawls (more than one) flung in different forms over her shoulders, after the manner of the late
Lady Hamilton. Then she had diamonds in profusion hung from every part of her head but her nose, and the whole was covered with feathers that would have done credit to any hearse. Well! after another quarter of an hour we all took the field again—the Lord Mayor at our head, and the gentle Lansdowne following with dear Miss Thorpe* under his arm. As we approached the great splendid hall, the procession halted for nearly ten minutes, which we in the rear could not comprehend. It turned out that Princess Olivia of Cumberland had made her claim as Princess of the Blood to sit at the right hand of my Lord Mayor. The worthy magistrate, however, with great spirit resisted these pretensions, and, after much altercation . . . she was compelled to retreat to another table, leaving the three Miss Thorpes the only ladies who had the honor to be surrounded by our English nobility. . . . The company assembled in the hall were nine hundred in number, ladies and gentlemen, at five tables. . . . We were marched entirely round the hall, till we arrived at the top, where a table on a slight elevation went across the hall for us guests. Western’s great delight was three men in complete armour from top to toe, with immense plumes of feathers upon their helmets. They were seated in three niches in the wall over our table. . . . It was their duty to rise and wave their truncheons when the Lord Mayor rose and gave his toasts; which they did with great effect, till one of them fainted away with heat and fell out of his hole upon the heads of the people below. . . .

“It is an abominable outrage to leave the Queen till February or the end of January without addresses from the two Houses upon her coming to the Throne, and without making any pecuniary provision for her; but so it will be, for of course the Black Rod will tap at our door on the 23rd the moment the Speaker is in the chair, and thus Parliament will be prorogued

* The Lord Mayor’s daughter.

before a word of complaint can be uttered on this shameful conduct. Thank God, however, whoever is Minister has a pleasant time before him. The people have learnt a great lesson from this wicked proceeding: they have learnt how to marshal and organise themselves, and they have learnt at the same time the success of their strength.
Waithman, who has just called upon me, tells me that the arrangements made in every parish in and about London on this occasion are perfectly miraculous—quite new in their nature—and that they will be of eternal application in all our public affairs. . . . They say the river below bridge to-day is the most beautiful sight in the world; every vessel is covered with colors, and at the head of the tallest mast in the river is the effigy of a Bishop, 20 or 30 feet in length, with his heels uppermost, hanging from the masthead.

“I enclose a little love-letter I got from Lady Holland some days since. It was preceded by a message to the same effect a day or two before; but, as you may suppose, I have taken no notice of either.”*

“Brooks’s, Nov. 23, 4 o’clock.

“No! I have seen many things in my life, but, in point of atrocity, nothing equal to our proceedings of to-day in the H. of Commons. Brougham wrote a note last night both to the Speaker and Lord Castlereagh, telling them he should have a communication to make to the H. of Commons from the Queen. Castlereagh did not answer the note; but the Speaker wrote him an answer that he would take the chair at ½ past 2, provided there were members enough present to make a house. We were there, of course, in great force, and he took the chair at the time appointed; but, after swearing in two new members, and when Denman was upon his legs, just opening the Queen’s communication, the Usher of the Black Rod knocked at the door. . . . You may suppose we all made a lusty holloa of ‘Mr. Denman! Mr.

* Holland House disapproved of the activity of “the Mountain” in the Queen’s defence; while Creevey and the rest of the Mountain resented bitterly the deference shown by Holland House to the King’s party.

Denman!’ The Speaker, however, left the chair, upon which
Bennet called out with a loud voice—‘This is scandalous!’ As the Speaker walked down the house, followed by Castlereagh, Vansittart and a few others, we holloaed out—‘Shame! shame!’ that might have been heard in any part of Westminster Hall. Certainly such a scene has never occurred in the H. of Commons since Charles the 1st’s time. There were 150 members present. The villains dared not shew this specimen of their low and pitiful spite in public: the galleries were closed; but Lambton has just given the editor of the Traveller an account of what passed. Canning was not in the House. . . . After all, there was no Speech from the Throne, quite contrary to all practices. If there had been one, the Speaker must have come back to report it to us; but this was the thing meant to be avoided; so, after being literally hooted out of our House, after going from the Lords he found his way the nearest road home, leaving us to find out as we could that we were actually prorogued.”