Chapter XXII: Appendix: D (1)

JUNIUS LETTERS

On Tuesday, May 29, 1834, I dined at Norfolk House; and the conversation turned, after dinner, as it does too often everywhere, on the question who was the author of _Junius_. However, on this occasion I heard something new and worth remembering.

Lord Albemarle, a man of a good memory and strict veracity, said he had once been present at a conversation (after much wine had been drunk) between Mr. Dudley North and Sir Philip Francis. The former rallied the latter somewhat rudely as the author of _Junius_, said it was vain to deny it, and that everybody so considered him, and took him to task for various opinions and expressions in the work. Francis grew angry, and with more solemnity than was usual exclaimed, “Do you then mean, sir, seriously to tell me that I am a scoundrel or a liar? I have denied distinctly my being the author, and after that they who believe I am must believe me to be a liar or a scoundrel or both.”

Dudley North then changed his battery; and, disclaiming all serious suspicion of the fact, implied he was unequal to the task, with much more to vex him and put him off his guard. At last he said: “In short, it is idle to talk so much about it: we all, in truth, know how it is—Lloyd[432] wrote the letters and you corrected the press.”

Francis at these words seemed startled; he coloured and answered, as Albemarle thought, with emotions of surprise: “_You have made much worse guesses, sir, in your life than that_.”

It tallies with my impressions of Francis’s conversations, inasmuch as he always seemed to me to know or imply something about _Junius_, but to _deny_ strictly his being the author.

FOOTNOTES

[1] [The ruler of Portugal at this time was Queen Maria I., who had succeeded her father King Joseph in 1777. She married her uncle Dom Pedro, who was proclaimed King conjointly with her. After the successive death of her husband and eldest son in 1788, she became insane, and the country was governed by her son Dom John, who was officially declared Regent in 1799.]

[2] [Percy, sixth Viscount Strangford (1780-1855), Minister Plenipotentiary to the Portuguese Court.

Early in November the Prince Regent of Portugal, alarmed by the threats of Napoleon, had issued a declaration detaining British subjects and property in Lisbon. Lord Strangford, after a final remonstrance, at once went on board the English fleet, which was under the command of Sir Sidney Smith. A rigorous blockade of the Tagus was enforced, but this state of affairs only lasted a few days. Intercourse with the Court was renewed, and Lord Strangford returned to Lisbon on the 27th.]

[3] My authorities for the facts related in the text are Sir Graham Moore;* Mr. Sitaro, a Portuguese merchant who victualled our fleets from Lisbon; Mr. Chamberlayne, then agent of packets at Lisbon, subsequently Consul at Rio Janeiro; and Mr. Bell, an English merchant, whose talents and intrepidity during the French occupation of Portugal should have entitled him to the place of Consul in 1809, but were found unequal to contend with the qualifications of Mr. Jeffrey,† a member of the House of Commons distinguished for his coarse calumnies and unfounded charges against Lord St. Vincent.—V.H.

[* Admiral Sir Graham Moore (1764-1843), a younger brother of Sir John Moore. The commander of the English fleet which escorted the Portuguese Royal Family to the Brazils.]

[† M.P. for Poole. His attacks on Lord St. Vincent took place in 1805 and 1806.]

[4] [For Lord Holland’s note on Lord Strangford’s dispatch, see Appendix A.]

[5] [Domingo Antonio de Souza-Continho, Marquis de Funchal (1765-1832), Portuguese Ambassador in England.]

[6] [An expedition against Mexico. See _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, vol. ii p. 117.]

[7] [The detention of Prince Ferdinand at Bayonne, whither Charles IV. had fled, and the rapid concentration of French armies on Madrid had caused the latent fury of the Spanish people to reach boiling point. A riot took place on May 2 in Madrid, in which five hundred French and many Spaniards were slain; and this within a few days was the signal for risings in every province of the country.]

[8] [Francis Horner, Esq. (1778-1817), a leading politician on the Whig side. One of the originators of the _Edinburgh Review_.]

[9] [John, tenth Earl of Westmorland (1759-1841), Lord Privy Seal.]

[10] [Florida Blanca (1728-1808), Spanish statesman. He was head of the Government from 1777 to 1791, when he was dismissed by Charles IV. and thrown into prison.]

[11] [Don Gaspar Melchior de Jovellanos (1744-1811), Spanish statesman and author.]

[12] [William Wickham (1761-1840). His activity as British Minister in Switzerland caused the French Directory to demand his expulsion in 1798. He was a member of the Treasury Board under Lord Grenville, 1806-1807.]

[13] [See _ante_, p. 11.]

[14] [The lenient terms of the Convention were generally condemned in England, and were even referred to with disapprobation in the King’s Speech at the commencement of the following Session, (January 19, 1809).]

[15] [Sir William Napier states that Moore obtained the command owing to the goodwill of the King, and that a few months before the Ministers had attempted to drive him into private life. Their hostility was fostered by Canning, whose friend Drummond, the British envoy at Palermo, Moore had thwarted when in command of the troops in Sicily. Sir John Moore wrote at this period in his Diary, edited by Major-General Sir J. F. Maurice (vol. ii. p. 250): “I understand that several of the Cabinet have taken a personal dislike to me, though I have seldom seen them, and they can know nothing of me. They wish to hold up Sir Arthur Wellesley.... Though they were forced to approve what I had done in Sweden, yet it was against the grain, for I took no trouble to conceal the ignorance which had sent us there, when they should have known from the character of the King and the weakness of his force that it was impossible for anything to be done.”]

[16] Sir John Moore was a Scotchman.—V.H.

[17] [Sir H. E. Bunbury, in his _Narrative_, says of him: “His manner was singularly agreeable to those whom he liked, but to those whom he did not esteem his bearing was severe.”]

[18] [Right Hon. John Hookham Frere (1769-1846), diplomatist and author. Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1799-1800: Minister at Lisbon, 1800: and at Madrid, 1802. After his failure in Spain, he refused further employment, and devoted himself to literature. Frere, being an intimate friend of Canning, was not likely to regard Moore with favour or to make any great exertions on his behalf.]

[19] [Manuel de Godoy, Duke of Alcudia (1767-1851), favourite and Minister of Charles IV.]

[20] [General Sir David Baird (1757-1829), Sir John Moore’s second-in-command.]

[21] Honble. Bladen Capel, who commanded the _Endymion_. (The account in the text was given me by Captain Basil Hall, then a midshipman in that ship, and confirmed by Capel himself.—V.H.)

[Afterwards Admiral Sir Thomas Bladen Capel, K.C.B. (1776-1853), youngest son of William Anne, fourth Earl of Essex.]

[22] [This letter, dated January 13, 1809, was written to Lord Castlereagh (_Castlereagh Correspondence_, vii. 26). The passage referred to in the text is as follows: “Your lordship knows that had I followed my own opinion as a military man, I should have retired with the army from Salamanca. The Spanish armies were then beaten. I was sensible, however, that had the British been withdrawn, the loss of the cause would have been imputed to their retreat. It was for this reason that I made the march to Sagunhan. As a diversion it succeeded: I brought the whole disposable force of the French against this army, and it has been allowed to follow it without a single movement being made to favour my retreat.”]

[23] [The Austrians made no actual move against France till March, 1809, but the intelligence of their activity caused Napoleon’s departure from Spain. He must, however, probably have realised, judging from an order issued when he was about to leave the army, that the escape of Moore and his force was ultimately certain.]

[24] [General Sir Robert Wilson (1777-1849), author of the _History of the British Expedition to Egypt_. He was dismissed from the army for a supposed participation in a riot on the occasion of Queen Caroline’s funeral, but was reinstated in 1830.]

[25] [Commander-in-Chief in Portugal for a few months.]

[26] [He was created Marquis de la Union, an appellation curiously unsuited to his record in Spain.]

[27] [William Adam (1751-1839), at this time Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales and trustee to the Duke of York in certain private matters.]

[28] [Sir David Dundas (1735-1820), Commander-in-Chief, 1809-1811.]

[29] [Mr. Creevey writes in his diary, dated, November 12, 1809: “I meet Abercromby in my walk.... When I tell him Wardle is on his legs again, all he can say is, ‘Wardle is the agent of the Duke of Kent.’ Was there ever such nonsense?” (_Creevey Papers_, vol. i. p. 113). Creevey seems, however, to have been a personal friend of Colonel Wardle. “I can’t bring myself to think there is anything bad in him, and I have looked at him in all ways in order to be sure of him. I know he is in distress for money, but all men from his part of the country dine with him and speak well of him.”]

[30] [William, afterwards third Earl of Radnor (1779-1869).]

[31] [John Charles, Viscount Althorp (1782-1845), who succeeded his father as Earl Spencer in 1834; Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1830-1834.]

[32] [Right Hon. George Ponsonby (1755-1817), son of John Ponsonby, Esq. He distinguished himself in the Irish Parliament, and was made Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1806. He was leader of the Whigs in the House of Commons from 1808 until his death in 1817, which resulted from a stroke of paralysis in the House.]

[33] [Sir William Napier states that the primary object of the expedition was to insure the safety of the town and Spanish fleet against any possibility of capture by the French. The negotiations finally fell through, owing to the wavering policy of the English Cabinet and the ill-judged diplomatic methods of Mr. Frere. The Supreme Junta refused to allow the British troops to enter the town, though the mob were clamouring for their admittance. After Sir George Smith’s death the command devolved on General Mackenzie, who returned with the troops to Lisbon after all hope of a satisfactory arrangement was at an end.]

[34] [Sir Sidney Smith had been sent out to command the South American Station in 1808.]

[35] [It is perhaps worthy of note that Lord Castlereagh’s biographer, Sir Archibald Alison, treats the expedition to Walcheren as one of a number of important moves against Napoleon. He considers that the War Secretary’s policy, unaltered throughout his tenure of office, was to break Napoleon’s power of meeting Great Britain on the sea, and illustrates his view by the mention of the successive expeditions aimed at the destruction or capture of fleets belonging to European Powers in subjection to France—_viz._, the bombardment of Copenhagen, the blockade of the Russian fleet in the Baltic, the expeditions to Lisbon and Cadiz, etc. Had Lord Castlereagh been able to persuade the Cabinet to undertake this expedition in 1808 instead of 1809, the destruction of the French fleet then building at Antwerp would have been assured. As it was, a daring and forward policy and a strict obedience to the original orders from home would have attained its object; but the incapacity and jealousy of the commanders gave Napoleon time to reinforce his garrisons, and doomed the British force to inactivity and disease in the swamps of the Scheldt.]

[36] [John, second Earl of Chatham (1756-1835). He held the posts of First Lord of the Admiralty, 1788-1794; Lord Privy Seal, 1794-1796; Lord President of the Council, 1796-1801; Master-General of the Ordnance, 1801-1806; Governor of Gibraltar, 1820-1835. Alison states that, “Lord Castlereagh was constrained by the highest influence to offer the command to the Earl of Chatham.”]

[37] [A monument was erected there by Lady Chatham, consisting of a marble urn, with a medallion by John Bacon. It is stated in the _Dictionary of National Biography_ that the memorial was removed to Stowe, and is now at Revesby Abbey, Lincolnshire.]

[38] [He served in Canada on Sir Guy Carleton’s staff from 1774 to March, 1776, when he was removed by his father from the army, owing to the continuance of the American War. He returned to the service two years later on the outbreak of war with France.]

[39] [Admiral Sir Home Popham (1762-1820). He had been attached to the Duke of York’s army in Flanders in 1795, and had thus gained experience and local knowledge of its seaboard. In this expedition he commanded the _Venerable_, seventy-four guns.]

[40] [The newly appointed Master-General of the Ordnance.]

[41] [Joseph Fouché, Duke of Otranto (1763-1820), one of Napoleon’s chief agents in the overthrow of the Directory. At this period Minister of Police and of the Interior.]

[42] The circumstances related in the text, which I committed to paper in 1817 or 1818, have been confirmed this year by the publication of Fouché’s memoirs: the agent, I learnt from those memoirs, to be no other than Ouvrard.—V.H.

[Gabriel Julien Ouvrard (1770-1846), French financier.]

[43] [A story is told in the _Memoirs of Sir Charles Napier_, on the authority of Lady Castlereagh, that Canning was willing to reinstate Castlereagh if he would give up Sir John Moore. Alison states the cause of the duel to have been the fact that Castlereagh detected, in the intrigue, a design of Canning for self-advancement and resented it accordingly.]

[44] Lord Grenville says, in a letter to me, October 17, 1809: “I really think, by dint of showing how ill he has been used, Castlereagh will begin to make himself regretted. It will be a singular conclusion of the business, if the compassion of the public should be excited in favour of the one Minister who was perhaps of them all the most unpopular.”

Such was, however, the conclusion, and Lord Grenville turned out a prophet.—V.H.

[45] [Right Hon. Charles Bragge Bathurst, cousin of Lord Bathurst. He accepted the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from Lord Liverpool in 1812.]

[46] [Sir Benjamin Hobhouse (1757-1831), father of the first Lord Broughton. Secretary to the Board of Control under Addington in 1803, and created a baronet in 1812.]

[47] Mr. Sydney Smith said coarsely, but wittily, that the Whig canvass for Lord Grenville at Oxford was like the trustees of the Magdalen applying to place a reclaimed prostitute at a baudy house.—V.H.

[48] [Better known as Lord Wycombe. His wife was the widow of Sir Duke Gifford, of Castle Jordan, in Ireland. Lord Lansdowne was succeeded by his half-brother, Lord Henry Petty.]

[49] [Princess Liechstenstein, in her book on Holland House, alludes to this story as a fabrication. Her version, however, is that the lines were composed by Lord Holland, describing the probable nature of his own death.]

[50] [Son of William, first Marquess of Lansdown, by his second wife, Lady Louisa Fitzpatrick; born in 1780.]

[51] [Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.]

[52] In 1815, or early in 1816, Lady Holland and myself were asked if we would receive him without any explanation of his long estrangement. We answered, “Yes”; and he resumed the habits of familiarity and intimacy as if nothing had happened.—V.H. [See p. 234.]

[53] [Henry George, Lord Porchester, who succeeded his father as second Earl of Carnarvon in 1811. Born in 1772; died in 1833.]

[54] [James, eighth Earl of Lauderdale (1759-1839). During the greater part of his political life he was included among the ultra-Whigs, but after 1820 his views underwent a radical change, and he even became an opponent of Lord Grey’s Reform Bill.]

[55] [Right Hon. Richard Ryder (1766-1832), second son of Nathaniel, first Baron Harrowby.]

[56] [William Frederick Eden (1782-1810), eldest son of William, first Lord Auckland, and Deputy-Teller of the Exchequer. He was found drowned in the Thames.]

[57] [Right Hon. Charles Philip Yorke (1764-1834), eldest son of the Right Hon. Charles Yorke, by his second wife; Secretary for War under Mr. Addington.]

[58] [John Gale Jones, the President of a debating society known by the high-sounding name of the “British Forum.” He was by trade an apothecary.]

[59] This they technically call “cushioning” a speaker.—V.H.

[60] [Published in 1866, by Mrs. Henry Baring.]

[61] [George Ellis (1745-1815), miscellaneous writer. He contributed to the _Rolliad_ and the _Anti-Jacobin_.]

[62] The Charter’s House, I think.—V.H.

[Mr. Windham died from the effects of a severe operation for tumour, which was caused by a slight injury received about a year before, while helping to save a valuable library from a fire in the house of his friend, the Hon. Frederick North.]

[63] I have been told that some parts of the original, not extracted by Mr. Ellis, and written in very plain English but in the Greek character, are very strange, and relate to very strange subjects.—V.H.

[64] [By a clause in the Appropriation Bill this sum was to be handed over to Queen Anne’s Bounty for the relief of the poorer clergy.]

[65] [Dr. John Allen (1771-1843). He was first introduced to Lord and Lady Holland in 1801, and accompanied them to Spain as their medical adviser. After their return in 1805, he lived almost entirely at Holland House, and was treated as a member of the family. He was a constant contributor to the Whig periodicals and reviews, and also published several historical treatises.]

[66] [Lord Lauderdale’s amendment in the House of Lords was directed against the payment of compensation to Mr. Thomas Scott for the abolition of a small Government post in Edinburgh, to which he had only been appointed a short time previously. A letter from Sir Walter Scott to his brother, written a few weeks later, is quoted in Lockhart’s _Life of Sir Walter Scott_: “Lord Holland has been in Edinburgh, and we met accidentally at a public party. He made up to me, but I remembered his part in your affair, and _cut_ him with as little remorse as an old pen.” The meeting took place at a dinner of the _Friday Club_.]

[67] [Covent Garden Theatre was destroyed by fire in September, 1808, and Drury Lane in February, 1809. The former was reopened by Kemble, with _Macbeth_, in September, 1809. The rise in prices, which aroused the displeasure of the theatre-going public, was but a small one. An extra shilling was to be charged for the boxes, and sixpence for the pit. The riots continued until the middle of December, when the original prices were restored.]

[68] [Henry Clifford (1768-1813), son of Hon. Thomas Clifford, of Tixall, Staffordshire.]

[69] The old Duke of Queensberry, in theory and practice the most selfish philosopher and consistent voluptuary of our days, tremblingly alive to every appearance of danger which threatened even remotely the stability of property, took the alarm. I believe he parted with money in support of the interests of the managers, and he subscribed largely soon afterwards to the rebuilding of Drury Lane Theatre.—V.H.

[70] Such I have seen from him to his sister, the Crown Princess of Brunswick; the copy of Smollett’s edition containing the mysterious passage I never saw. His son, George IV., when Prince of Wales, told me it was in Lord Buckingham’s library or in Buckingham House library; and, strange to say, I forget which.—V.H.

[71] [The following anecdote appears in a manuscript volume containing various reminiscences and short essays written by Lord Holland, which may possibly relate to the incident mentioned in the text: “In the Coalition Administration there was a Cabinet held for granting pardons and reprieves and signing warrants of execution, etc., when a difficulty occurred that had not been foreseen, _viz._, that when sentence of death was converted into transportation there was no place to transport the felons to. Some conversation ensued between Lord North and Mr. Fox, when His Majesty, with a levity quite unusual to his character, said, ‘Gentlemen, the felons used to be sent to America. But America is now lost. It is none of my fault. It is for you, gentlemen’ (addressing Mr. Fox and Lord North) ‘to settle it between you;’ and retired half bowing and skipping out of the room. Mr. Fox, probably from having been disconcerted at so strange a sally, would never allow that there was the least pleasantry or fun in this singular trait of His Majesty; and General Conway observed on the spot that it seemed to him His Majesty was a little touched in the head.”]

[72] [Mr. Pitt resigned in 1801 on account of the King’s refusal to deal in any way with the Roman Catholic question.]

[73] Afterwards Sir Herbert.—V.H.

[He was originally Military-Secretary to the Duke of York, and first acted as Secretary to the King in 1804. It is stated on his own authority that he was the first Private Secretary employed by George III.]

[74] [Jesse, in his _Memoirs of King George III._, states that the King had at some period of his youth conceived a passionate admiration for Elizabeth, Countess of Pembroke, daughter of Charles, second Duke of Marlborough. Whether this ever came to the knowledge of the lady in question is uncertain, but her beauty seems to have made a deep impression on George III.’s mind. During his illness in 1789, and again in 1810, her name was continually on his lips; and it is even reported that he thought he was married to her, and was furious at not being allowed to see her.]

[75] If His Majesty meant by “stable” monarchical, his prophecy has been happily fulfilled; but if he used the word in its true sense, the events of the ensuing forty years strangely belied his expectations. Almost every monarchy in Christendom has been convulsed by insurrections, revolutions, and changes, but the Republic of the United States has been uniformly tranquil and undisturbed in its sure progress, improvement, and prosperity.—V.H.

[76] [Edward Venables Vernon (1757-1847), youngest son of George, first Lord Vernon, and Martha, daughter of Hon. Simon Harcourt; appointed to the See of York in 1807. He took the name of Harcourt in 1831, on succeeding to the estates of that family.

Charles Manners-Sutton, grandson of the third Duke of Rutland; born in 1755; became Bishop of Norwich in 1792, and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1805; died in 1828. He was father of Charles Manners-Sutton, created Viscount Canterbury, Speaker from 1817 to 1834. Wraxall relates that Pitt was anxious to raise Dr. Tomline, Bishop of Lincoln, who was at one time his Private Secretary, to the vacancy at Canterbury. George III., however, refused to listen to the suggestion, and insisted on the appointment of Dr. Manners-Sutton.]

[77] Perhaps, when compared with his immediate predecessors, he is entitled to some little praise for promoting literature and encouraging the arts. His father had courted popularity by affecting a passion for poetry, and the real or ostentatious respect for letters entertained by Lord Bute had impressed on his mind a notion that it became a sovereign to patronise such pursuits. He accordingly founded the Royal Library, pensioned Dr. Johnson and some less celebrated writers, and collected more than one valuable library. He had, however, little or no perception of the beauties of any of those arts he thus rewarded. He had no relish for poetry, wit, or eloquence; no love of study; no discrimination in painting, sculpture, or even conversation. He had some fanciful notions about architecture, but all perverted or bad.—V.H.

[78] Beneficia, eo usque læta sunt, dum videntur exsolvi posse: ubi multum antevenere, pro gratia odium redditur.—_Tacitus Ann._, lib. iv. 18.

Quidam, quo plus debent, eo magis oderunt. Leve æs alienum debitorem facit, grave inimicum.—_Seneca_, ep. 19.—V.H.

[79] It was with reference to this infirmity or talent, whichever it be, in His Royal Highness, that Mr. Fox, on being sent for by him from the country to hear an explanation of his conduct or sentiments on some public occasion, said with more peevishness, but with as much pleasantry and simplicity, as were usual in him, “Here must I leave my roses and St. Anne’s, and go to London to hear _a lie an hour long_ at Carlton House.” Nothing could more happily describe the character of the Prince’s conversation when he wished to conceal his views or opinions.—V.H.

[80] [Sir Robert Adair (1763-1855), son of Robert Adair, Surgeon to George III., and Lady Caroline Keppel, daughter of the second Earl of Albemarle.]

[81] [Lord Eldon.]

[82] [The Bill was composed of five resolutions: (1) Appointing the Prince of Wales Regent with certain restrictions: (2) Refusing him the power, for a time, of granting peerages: (3) Refusing the power of granting offices and reversions for a longer term than the royal pleasure: (4) Treating of the King’s private property: (5) Vesting the management of the King’s Household in the Queen.]

[83] [Richard, second Lord Ashburton (1782-1823). The title became extinct at his death.]

[84] [William Eden, created Lord Auckland in 1789. He died in 1814.]

[85] [Charles, third Earl Stanhope (1753-1816). He married a sister of William Pitt, whom he supported in Parliament until 1786. During that year Lord Stanhope succeeded to the title, and differences on the Sinking Fund caused him to desert his brother-in-law and ally himself to the Whigs. He was an ardent admirer of the revolutionary doctrines in France, and gave his support to any advanced schemes for reform in this country. Lord Holland gives a detailed account of his inventions and eccentric ways in the early volumes of this work. See also p. 245.]

[86] [By a majority of 3. The House adjourned at 5 o’clock in the morning.]

[87] [Gustavus IV., King of Sweden from 1792 to 1809. In the latter year he was removed from the throne by the Swedish people, who were enraged by his foreign policy. He was succeeded by his uncle.]

[88] [Lord Grenville insisted on retaining his auditorship in addition to the post of First Lord of the Treasury. The arrangement was especially indefensible, from his objection to the principle in the case of two members of the existing Government.]

[89] [Lord Holland was accustomed to take a house in London every year. Holland House was at that period completely surrounded by country. Dr. Drew writes in December, 1797: “Again, the walk from Kensington to Hyde Park Corner by day is pleasant enough, but the return by night dark and dangerous and infested by footpads....” (_Holland House MSS._)]

[90] [See Moore’s _Life of Sheridan_, vol. ii. p. 394.]

[91] [Francis Charles, Earl of Yarmouth (1777-1842), who succeeded his father as second Marquess of Hertford in 1822.]

[92] Then Dr. Vaughan.—V.H.

[George III.’s principal medical attendant.]

[93] [Charles William, Viscount Milton (1786-1857). He succeeded his father as Earl Fitzwilliam in 1833.]

[94] Lord Dartmouth, in his notes to Burnett, ascribes this repartee to some other Whig lord. No matter who said it, the saying is good, illustrates much of the private and party history of this country, and is, I think, applicable to the passage which I have been relating.—V.H.

[95] [General the Hon. Richard FitzPatrick (1748-1813), Lord Holland’s uncle.]

[96] Lords Grey and Grenville.—V.H.

[97] Cumberland.—V.H.

[98] Bedfordshire.—V.H.

[99] Vernon Smith, his nephew, then ill at Ampthill Park.—V.H.

[100] Mr. Wellesley Pole, afterwards Lord Maryborough, brother to the Duke of Wellington.—V.H.

[101] [The letter is given in the _Annual Register_ for 1811, p. 12.]

[102] [_Ex officio_ informations are those filed by the Attorney-General _in virtue of his office_, without applying to the court, where they are filed, for leave, or giving the defendant an opportunity of showing cause why they should not be filed (_Cabinet Lawyer_).]

[103] [Edward Law, first Baron Ellenborough (1750-1818). Lord Chief Justice from 1802 till the year of his death. Charles Greville, in his _Memoirs_, repeats an amusing story of his treatment of counsel in his court. “A man was opening his speech, and said, ‘My Lord, my unfortunate client,’ and then repeated the words again. ‘Go on, sir,’ said Lord Ellenborough, ‘the court is with you so far.’”]

[104] [“The general tenour of his speech (that of Mr. Horner on May 6) was to show that the paper currency of the country had undergone an actual depreciation, and that the only remedy was to provide for the resumption of cash payments at the bank as speedily as possible.”—_Annual Register_, 1811.

The report of the Parliamentary Committee on bullion, of which Mr. Horner was president and Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Peel was a member, was to the same effect, _i.e._ that paper issues were always liable to depreciation unless they were at any time convertible into gold.]

[105] [Peter, seventh Lord King (1776-1833). His eldest son, who succeeded him, was created Earl of Lovelace.]

[106] [This famous case was raised by William Berkeley, eldest son of Frederick-Augustus, fifth Earl of Berkeley, on the death of his father in 1810, claiming the titles. He was born in 1786, and though his father was not supposed to have married his mother, Mary Cole, until 1796, a secret marriage was alleged to have taken place in 1785. This was, however, proved to be untrue, and the suit was disallowed. William Berkeley was created Earl Fitzhardinge in 1841: his youngest brother, the only son born after the marriage, never took any steps to claim the title of Earl of Berkeley.]

[107] In the course of the cause a question arose whether the declaration or deposition of the late Lord Berkeley could be admitted in evidence. It was referred to the judges; and their solemn opinion was delivered that it could _not_. Never was the force of a phrase more strongly exemplified than on that occasion. Mr. Justice Laurence drew a distinction between declarations made before and after any question had been raised on the subject. In stating the distinction, he borrowed a Latin phrase from the Civil Law, and said that a declaration _post litem motam_ could not be admitted. _Lis mota_ occurred in every fourth or fifth sentence of every opinion delivered afterwards by the learned judges. The Lords looked wise, and acknowledged in whispers to each other a _lis mota_ altered the whole nature of a declaration. The declaration in question was, on this principle, rejected. Yet the phrase _lis mota_, which seemed to awaken all the recollections of the learned, was then mentioned for the first time, and had hitherto been utterly unknown to our law and our lawyers. Even the principle, though perhaps not unreasonable, had never, or at least very seldom, if ever, been recognised in our Courts.—V.H.

[108] The business was decided in Parliament, or rather compromised finally elsewhere in 1812, but it was obvious that the zeal of the Prince Regent in the cause of his friend had abated in 1811.—V.H.

[Colonel Palmer, the manager of the Bath Theatre, had, in 1784, after much difficulty, obtained a trial for his scheme of fast mail coaches. Such was its success that, in 1800, the postal revenues were more than trebled. It was at first proposed to grant him 2½ per cent. on a portion of the increase, but this fell through, owing to the opposition of the authorities, and with much difficulty he finally obtained a pension of £3,000 a year and a gratuity of £50,000.]

[109] I have sometimes thought that this book, which is too long, might with due regard to method and perspicuity be divided here. As it stands, however, it embraces all the negotiations between the Prince Regent and the Whigs, and the period included in it is not more than one year and half.—V.H.

[110] When I related the substance of these conversations to Lord Grey, I could not but be diverted with his characteristic and somewhat jealous remark, “There was no use,” said he, “in mentioning A. G. Ponsonby; to such an arrangement there might be many objections. I feel some myself.”—V.H.

[111] [General the Hon. Henry Edward Fox, Lord Holland’s uncle, youngest brother of Charles James Fox. He was born in 1755, and married, in 1786, Marianne, daughter of William Clayton, Esq.]

[112] Lord Dorchester.—V.H.

[113] [Rumours were afloat in Spain at this time of a desire to place British officers in command of Spanish troops, and of the possibility of a permanent occupation by the English of certain portions of Spanish territory. A note was delivered to the Cortes by the British Minister, Mr. Wellesley, flatly contradicting these statements.]

[114] [Richard Colley, Marquess Wellesley (1760-1842), elder brother of the Duke of Wellington; Governor-General of India, 1797-1805; Ambassador at Madrid, 1809; Foreign Secretary, 1809-1812; Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 1821-1828 and 1833-1834.]

[115] [Sir Archibald Alison claims the initiation of this policy for Lord Castlereagh. Lord Holland’s account, however, is more probably correct, for Mr. Thornton, who was in charge of the negotiations, was sent to Sweden five months before Lord Castlereagh’s return to office.]

[116] Some say he was a relation, and an Irishman. The original name of the Wellesley or Wesley family was Colley.—V.H.

[117] [His views on the Roman Catholic question also tended to his subsequent resignation. See Appendix B.]

[118] [He delivered up the Seals on February 19th.]

[119] [The letter is published in the _Annual Register_ for 1812, p. 329. After a lengthy dissertation on the state of affairs at the moment when he became Regent, the Prince discussed the danger of any sudden change of Administration in the critical state of the war, but hoped that his former friends would combine with the Ministers to form a really powerful Government. He asked the Duke of York to convey this expression of his views to Lords Grey and Grenville.]

[120] I allude particularly to Mr. Southey,* who should have found in the recollection of early kindnesses received from Mr. Charles Williams Wynn,† when he was himself accused of obnoxious and Jacobinical principles and not in affluent circumstances, some motives for suppressing or softening rather than promulgating and exaggerating any hasty or unguarded declarations which that gentleman might have made to him in the heat of argument or in the warmth and confidence of friendship. But Mr. Southey seemed about that time tired of opinions which led to no worldly advantages, and angry with all Whigs because those among them who were critics were not boundless in their admiration of all his poetical effusions.—V.H.

[* Robert Southey (1774-1843), the poet.]

[† Charles Watkin Williams Wynn (1775-1850), a nephew of Lord Grenville and Under-Secretary for the Home Department in the Ministry of “all the talents.” He settled a small allowance on Southey, which was to continue until he was able to obtain a pension for him from Government.]

[121] [See _ante_, p. 103.]

[122] [The letter appears on p. 331 of the _Annual Register_ for 1812. The reasons for their refusal to take office with the Ministers were based entirely on the advice given them by Lord Lansdowne.]

[123] [For Foreign Affairs.]

[124] “Weep, daughter of a Royal line,” etc., etc.

The stanzas are printed, and to be found in his works.—V.H.

[The incident took place at a banquet at Carlton House on February 22, 1812. According to the account printed in the _Courier_, the Prince Regent expressed his “surprise and mortification” at Lords Grey and Grenville’s unfavourable reply to the Duke of York’s letter. Lord Lauderdale thereupon made it clear, in somewhat brusque language, that the sentiments of the two Lords reflected exactly the disposition of the whole Whig party, and that he himself had given his cordial assent to their answer.]

[125] It was written by Mr. Brougham.—V.H.

[126] I have altered this passage from “hitherto has been” to “was,” for since I originally wrote it in 1821 the great poetical genius of whom it treats has terminated his short and irregular, but brilliant, career in a place and in circumstances (and perhaps at a period of life) fortunate for his literary and political fame. He was perhaps the shortest, but surely not the least, miracle of our age.—V.H.

[127] [John Milner, D.D. (1752-1826), Bishop of Castabala and Vicar-Apostolic in the West of England.]

[128] [The chief question was whether the English Government should have a right of veto on the appointment of Catholic Bishops in the United Kingdom.]

[129] [These Orders in Council were issued in 1807, in order to counteract Napoleon’s Berlin and Milan decrees against British commerce. Any ship bound for a port in the French dominions was proclaimed a lawful prize, unless she had already touched at some British harbour.

The effect of this was to entirely put an end to the carrying trade of the world; for one side confiscated ships which had come from English ports, and the other those which had not. The Americans withdrew their ships entirely from European waters, and passed a Non-Intercourse Act forbidding commercial transactions with either of the combatants.]

[130] [Created Earl Granville in 1815. (1773-1846).]

[131] [_King Richard II._, Act II., Scene i.]

[132] [Charles George, Lord Arden (1756-1840), Mr. Perceval’s eldest brother.]

[133] I wrote this in 1820 or 1821. Since that period the impression of which I speak, if not altered, has been worn away and is much forgotten. The change in men and in the condition of the country, and the unreasonable and extravagant excitement produced by recent crimes and their punishments, have, I believe, obliterated in the mind of the common people the recollection of their feelings about Bellingham.—V.H.

[134] [Mr. Perceval had, in April, sanctioned the appointment of Committees of both Houses to examine the flood of petitions which were pouring in.]

[135] [The papers and minutes relating to these negotiations are given in the _Annual Register_ for 1812, State Papers, p. 346, etc.]

[136] [This letter was dated May 18.]

[137] [James Archibald Stuart-Wortley-Mackenzie (1776-1845), created Baron Wharncliffe in 1826.]

[138] [Mr. Creevey’s account of these negotiations in a letter, dated May 25, is worthy of comparison with the text: “First then when Prinney sent for Wellesley, the latter began by mentioning some of the Opposition as persons to be consulted with; to which the former replied: ‘Don’t mention any names to me _now_, my Lord, but make an Administration for me!’ To which the other says: ‘In a business of such nicety I trust your Royal Highness will not press me for time.’ ‘Take your own time,’ says Prinney, ‘tho’ there is not a shilling left in the Exchequer!’” (_The Creevey Papers._)]

[139] [In a communication made to Lords Grey and Grenville at Lord Grey’s house on May 23.]

[140] [George, third Earl of Egremont (1751-1837). He took little part in politics, but is justly remembered for the encouragement he gave to every form of art.]

[141] I think the Prince Regent wished to stipulate that Lord Wellesley should be First Lord of the Treasury, but Lord Wellesley declared to the two Lords in the first communication, and had probably stated to His Royal Highness beforehand, that he wished to decline that office and to leave the new Ministry, if formed, to cast the parts among themselves.—V.H.

[142] [Sir William Grant (1752-1832), Master of the Rolls from 1801 to 1817.]

[143] This passage was written in the autumn of 1821. Within three months the remark was in some senses practically refuted, for Lord Wellesley was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, but whether at the suggestion of Lord Liverpool’s Ministry or with its reluctant and extorted consent, I cannot determine. March, 1822.—V.H.

[144] [See _ante_, p. 87.]

[145] [William Harry, third Earl of Darlington (1766-1842). He was created Duke of Cleveland in 1833.]

[146] The Duke of Norfolk, on the first offer, gladly accepted it, and returning to his house said to Mr. Stephenson, who lived with him, with some exaltation, “I am Lord Privy Seal.” He afterwards found he had no Whig, and scarcely any other, colleague; and he was off, relating on his return home the very next day to the same gentleman, with some pleasantry, “I am now not Lord Privy Seal.”—V.H.

[147] [On June 8.]

[148] [The principal members of the new Government were as follows: Earl of Liverpool, First Lord of the Treasury; Viscount Castlereagh, Foreign Secretary; Lord Melville, First Lord of the Admiralty; Earl Bathurst, Secretary for War and Colonies; Lord Sidmouth, Secretary for Home Department; Lord Eldon, Lord Chancellor; Lord Harrowby, Lord President of the Council.]

[149] [Mr. Stuart Wortley’s motion on May 21 for an efficient Administration. See _ante_, p. 136.]

[150] [In 1813.]

[151] [William Wilberforce (1759-1833), the champion of the Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which was passed in 1807.]

[152] [See _ante_, p. 132.]

[153] Major a longinquo reverentia.—V.H.

[154] [War broke out before the news of the repeal of the Orders in Council reached the United States.]

[155] [James Stephen (1758-1832), brother-in-law and an active supporter of Wilberforce in his efforts against the slave trade. A pamphlet published by him in 1805, entitled _War in Disguise_, is supposed to have suggested the Orders in Council. He retired from Parliament in 1815, disgusted at the refusal of the Government to support a bill for the registration of slaves.]

[156] [For Lord Holland’s previous attempts to modify the law with respect to _ex officio_ informations, see _ante_, p. 99.]

[157] In 1819.—V.H.

[158] “C’etoit un de mes caprices,” said that great Prince of him at Elba. He had educated and fostered him like a son, he promoted him like a favourite, and he was basely betrayed by him at Fontainebleau in 1814. I remember Sir Lionel Copley, in 1799, defended his suspicions of General Moreau by a humorous, not to say nonsensical, coincidence: “When there are prospects of restorations by treachery,” said he, “I do not like a General whose name begins with an _M_.” What maledictions would he not have uttered when _M_ar_m_ont and _M_orillo were added to the list of _M_onk and _M_oreau!—V.H.

[Marmont, Duke of Ragusa (1774-1852) served in the artillery with Napoleon, and was his principal aide-de-camp in his Italian campaign of 1796. He reached the rank of Marshal in 1809, being promoted for his success at Wagram. He defended Paris in 1813 against the Allies while there was any hope of success, but afterwards went over to the enemy, and was among the number of those excepted by Napoleon from the amnesty on his return from Elba.]

[159] [Lord Wellington had just commenced his lunch, after a morning spent in fruitless manœuvring, when an important movement on the part of the French was announced. His practised eye at once took in Marmont’s faulty dispositions. “By God!” he exclaimed, “that’ll do!” and, hurling all his available troops at the weak spot, gained a signal victory.]

[160] [On whom the command of the French troops had devolved.]

[161] [This was the occasion of the publication of _Rejected Addresses_.]

[162] [Robert William Elliston (1774-1831), an actor of note, and a successful manager. He took the management of Drury Lane Theatre in 1819, and remained until 1826 when obliged by bankruptcy to resign the post.]

[163] [When the Committee was formed in 1810 to rebuild the theatre, it was arranged that Sheridan and his family should be bought out. It was then stipulated that he should “have no concern or connection of any kind with the new undertaking.” This Sheridan looked on as a matter of form, and was greatly enraged when Whitbread, as Chairman of the Committee, rigidly enforced the clause.]

[164] Sir Robert Wilson* was sent from the army to Alexander, to inform him that they were resolved to consider any truce or pacification that he should sign as extorted from him by force or treachery; as the act of Romanzow,† not of their Sovereign; and they authorised Sir Robert to convey his opinion to His Imperial Majesty, as that of a foreign observer, that the army would not obey any orders founded on a pacification. The result of this and other intimations of the sort was the dismissal of Romanzow and the adoption of firmer councils. The Empress Dowager, as well as the Empress, took an opportunity of assuring Sir Robert Wilson that the Emperor was now determined to abandon all notion of temporising or yielding, and that he might be depended upon.

(From conversation with Sir R. Wilson, 1825).—V.H.

[* Sir Robert Wilson had just satisfactorily concluded a mission to Constantinople and St. Petersburg dealing with the negotiations for the re-establishment of peace between Turkey and Russia. He was at that time attached to the Russian army, with instructions to communicate all information to Lord Cathcart, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg.]

[† Count Nicholas Romanzow (1753-1826) the Russian Chancellor.]

[165] [See _ante_, p. 102.]

[166] [William Conyngham Plunket, afterwards first Lord Plunket (1764-1854), at this time member for Dublin University. Lord Castlereagh declared that Mr. Plunket’s speech on February 25 dealing with this question, “would never be forgotten.” He was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland by Lord Grey in 1830.]

[167] [Gilbert Elliot, afterwards second Earl of Minto (1782-1859)].

[168] [Charles Abbot (1757-1829), created Lord Colchester in 1816. He held the post of Speaker of the House of Commons from 1802 until his elevation to the peerage.]

[169] [Lord Morpeth brought a motion in April, 1814, that the address of the Speaker on the occasion referred to should not be treated as a precedent; but it was defeated by a large majority. His action, however, had the desired effect, and since that time no Speaker in his address has referred to measures which have not been passed by the House of Commons.]

[170] [Hon. Richard FitzPatrick, second son of John, first Earl of Upper Ossory, and Evelyn, daughter of John, Earl Gower. He was born in 1748, and, entering the Army, rose to the rank of General.

Mr. Creevey, in mentioning his death, says of him, “I thought you might like to hear these particulars respecting the end of by far the most clever of the quiet class I have ever seen, and the most perfect judgt. of any class.”]

[171] [April to December, 1783. He accompanied the Duke of Portland to Ireland in 1782.]

[172] [It is interesting to note that Lord Grenville’s chief objection to the policy of the Government was, that they were treating the interests of the East India Company as of the highest importance, whereas he considered that those of the British Crown should have the foremost place. He maintained that a public assertion should be made of the sovereignty of the Crown in India and the power of Parliament to make laws for the general welfare of that vast country.]

[173] [See vol. ii. p. 149, in the earlier portion of Lord Holland’s Memoir. In that year, owing to a report that the Princess had been delivered of an illegitimate child, a Committee, consisting of Lords Erskine, Ellenborough, Grenville, and Spencer, with Sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor-General, as their legal adviser, was appointed to examine into her conduct. They stated in their report that there was no vestige of truth in the primary charge, but that in their opinion the levity of her behaviour on several occasions was worthy of censure. The matter again came to the front in 1813, owing to the Prince Regent’s refusal in October of the preceding year to allow the Princess to see her daughter, although she had gone specially to Windsor for that purpose. Furious at the insult, she wrote the letters referred to in the text to her husband and the Speaker of the House of Commons. A debate in that House ensued, and the letters and papers were referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, who reported that under the circumstances they considered that the intercourse between mother and daughter should be regulated and restricted.]

[174] [Whitbread.]

[175] [The Hon. Mrs. Lisle, a lady in attendance on the Princess, and a witness in the case.]

[176] Mr. Brougham related to me this and the following facts many years afterwards, and when he could have no object in deceiving me.—V.H.

[177] I have questioned persons who attended her medically. The duties and delicacies of their profession would, of course, prevent their acknowledging such facts, if ascertained by their professional attendance, even after her death; but the manner in which such a hint was received, the official tone of every answer given to my inquiries, the manifest embarrassment those inquiries occasioned, and the absence of all direct contradiction or disposition to explode the idea as absurd, confirmed me in my previous surmises. I have no doubt she was mad.—V.H.

[178] [At the battle of Navarette in 1367.]

[179] [Sir George Murray (1772-1846), second son of Sir William Murray, of Ochtertyre. He was promoted to the rank of Major-General in 1812, and, entering the House of Commons in 1823, became Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Duke of Wellington’s Administration of 1828.]

[180] Mr. Fazakerley, a man of accuracy and veracity, soon after seeing Napoleon at Elba in 1814 or 1815, related to me the following admission of that extraordinary man, and has frequently alluded to or repeated it since. He said that in all prudence he ought to have made peace immediately after the victories of Bautzen and Lutzen, and before the great battle of Leipsic. “Mais,” continued he, “je me croyois assez fort et je me suis trompé. C’etoit là assurément le moment de faire la paix, aussi l’aurois-je faite si je ne m’avois pas cru plus fort que je ne l’etois en effet.” A singular admission, especially for one not apt to be candid in acknowledging his errors.—V.H.

[181] [Lord Holland is probably mistaken as to the scene of this exploit. An incident such as is described above certainly took place at the battle of Lutzen: and the Emperor decorated Wilson with the cross of the Order of St. George, taken from his own neck, at a review some three weeks later.]

[182] [William, Prince of Orange, had fled to England in 1795, after the occupation of Amsterdam by General Pichegru. A Republican Government was then established until 1806, when Napoleon forced his brother Louis on the unwilling people as their King. In 1814 the tide turned against France (Holland had been annexed by that country in 1813), and the Dutch rose in revolt. The Prince of Orange was recalled, and was proclaimed King of Holland and Belgium under the title of William I. The Monarchy was made hereditary, and a Liberal Constitution was drawn up.]

[183] [Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838). He quarrelled with Napoleon in 1808 when Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and after that time sided secretly with the Bourbons, though he retained his office.]

[184] [Emmerich-Joseph de Worms, Duc de Dalberg (1773-1833), a friend and follower of Talleyrand.]

[185] [Lord Holland gives the same account of these intrigues in his _Foreign Reminiscences_, p. 297. He there relates that the kind of token sent to Metternich is uncertain. It was either the ring, a few words in the Duc de Dalberg’s handwriting enclosed in a button, or a note in Lord Castlereagh’s writing to the Princesse de Vaudemont, as a proof of his being confidentially connected with Talleyrand. This latter story was told him by Lord Goderich in 1833.]

[186] [Lord Holland somewhat minimises the popular desire, which, according to other accounts, was manifested in the South for a restoration of the Bourbons. The Duke of Wellington himself was certainly in favour of the movement, though in conformity with instructions from the English Government he refrained from any expression of his personal views.]

[187] I had many of the facts, more in detail than here related, directly from Mr. Gallois,* and indirectly from Dalberg himself; and they were confirmed or corroborated by the concurrence of other accounts of the less material facts from several others, and especially Pozzo di Borgo,† whose interesting relation of these transactions I had heard before I knew of Vitrolles’s intrigue, with which it was so far from being inconsistent that it tallied exactly in one main particular, the surprise of Alexander at finding no concerted plan for the Bourbons on his arrival at Paris.—V.H.

[* Jean Antoine Gallois, French politician, and friend of Lord Holland. He died in 1828.]

[† Count Pozzo di Borgo (1764-1842), diplomatist; afterwards Russian Ambassador in England.]

[188] [Richard Westmacott, R.A. (1775-1856), the eminent sculptor.]

[189] [Lord Wellington received the news of the events in Paris on the night of the 11th. The information was brought by Colonel Cooke, accompanied by a French officer, who had orders to communicate with the Marshals.]

[190] [Briefly, the situation was as follows. After the attack of the Allies on Paris of March 30, Marmont, who was in command of the French forces, capitulated; and the populace, without Napoleon to lead them, acquiesced. A provisional Government was proclaimed under the leadership of Talleyrand; the Emperor was dethroned on April 2; and Louis XVIII. was made king. In the meanwhile Napoleon himself remained at Fontainebleau. The army was on his side, but the Marshals were tired of the unequal combat, and forced him to abdicate in favour of his infant son. This proposal was refused by the Allies, and under pressure he signed an unconditional surrender on April 6.]

[191] Still a hotel in 1825 and formerly a house of Lord Monson’s. The Houses of York, Stuart, and Bourbon all adopted white as their emblems and divine hereditary right to the government of their fellow creatures as their fundamental maxim.* Even English soldiers were permitted to wear it, a circumstance which provoked the following epigram from the pen of Mr. Rogers: