I might as well have put in on the 25th of November what the King said to me, as it seems to have amused everybody. I was standing close to him at the Council, and he put down his head and whispered, 'Which are you for, Cadland or the mare?' (meaning the match between Cadland and Bess of Bedlam); so I put my head down too and said, 'The horse;' and then as we retired he said to the Duke, 'A little bit of Newmarket.'

December 30th, 1828 {p.148}

Hyde Villiers brought me on Thursday or Friday last a copy of the Duke's letter to Dr. Curtis,[20] which had been sent to him from Dublin under strict injunction of not showing it. The next day it appeared in all the newspapers, O'Connell having read it to the a.s.sociation. It has made a great noise, and being as usual ambiguous, both parties affect to consider it to be in their favour. I fancy the Duke is very angry at its publication, at least judging from what his secretaries say.

[20] [The Duke of Wellington had corresponded with Dr.

Curtis, the t.i.tular Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland, for many years. Indeed, as appears in the text, he had known him long before at Salamanca, when this prelate was at the Irish College there. Several excellent letters by Dr. Curtis to the Duke are published in the second volume of the Duke's 'Correspondence,' New Series. The letter adverted to in the text was that in which the Duke said (not very wisely) that 'if men could bury the subject (of Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation) in oblivion for a short time, it might be possible to discover a satisfactory remedy.' Curtis put a copy of the letter in O'Connell's hands, and he read it aloud at the Catholic a.s.sociation. Curtis sent a copy of the letter and his own reply to the Lord-Lieutenant, who answered him in another letter, in which he said that 'he did not before know the precise sentiments of the Duke upon the present state of the Catholic question.'

This letter was also made public, and added fuel to the flames.]

The word _the_ in the first paragraph was subst.i.tuted for _a_, and this alteration these blockheads pretend makes a great difference in the sense. It makes none, and is only worthy of remark because they probably echo what he has said. It is clear enough as to his _opinion_, but nothing more. Curtis was in Spain and imprisoned by the French at Salamanca. After the battle the Duke delivered him and had a good deal of communication with him.

He returned to Ireland, and from that period has been in occasional correspondence with the Duke. Curtis had written him a long letter, desiring information about his intentions, and this was the answer. A few days ago Hyde Villiers called on the Duke and placed in his hands the resolutions which were agreed to by a committee of the general meeting to be held in Dublin next month.

He took them, but said he must decline saying anything; as Minister of the Crown he could not say a word, as whatever he did must be done in conjunction with his colleagues and with the King; that there was a disposition to draw inferences from everything, as, for example, that a gentleman he had known in Spain had written to him on the subject, and his answer had been handed about, and all sorts of inferences drawn from it, which was very inconvenient, and proved how cautious he must be. No doubt it was the Curtis correspondence to which he alluded.

1829.

[Page Head: RECALL OF LORD ANGLESEY.]

January 2nd, 1829 {p.149}

Lord Anglesey was recalled last Sunday. The Duke of Wellington came to see my mother either Sat.u.r.day or Sunday last, and told her he had been with the King three hours the day before, talking to him about Lord A., that his Majesty was furious with him, thought he took upon himself as if he were King of Ireland, and was indignant at all he said and all he did. The Duke talked a great deal about him, but did not say he was recalled, though his manner was such that he left an impression that he had something in his mind which he would not let out. He gave it to be understood, however, that he had been endeavouring to appease the King, and that Lord A.'s recall was insisted on by his Majesty against his (the Duke's) desire. I enquired warmly whether he had a.s.serted or only implied this, because I don't believe one word of it. I was told that he had only implied it, but had left that impression. But the Duke complained of Lord A.'s conduct to himself; that he had at first written him insolent letters, and latterly had hardly ever written to him at all. My belief is that the Duke has for some time wished to get rid of Lord Anglesey, that these Cabinets have been upon this subject, and that his recall was settled there. As to the King's dictation and the Duke's submission, I don't believe a word of it. It has been clear to me for some time that the Irish Government could not remain in Lord Anglesey's hands. I am very sorry for it, for I think it will have a bad effect, and have little hope of its being followed by any measures likely to counteract the evil it immediately occasions.

January 4th, 1829 {p.150}

I have seen letters from Dublin stating that the immediate cause of the recall was a letter which Lord Anglesey had written to the Duke (but what that was I have not ascertained), and that his imprudence was so great it was impossible he could have gone on.

Certainly the writing and then publishing this letter of Curtis'

is an enormous act of indiscretion. The consternation in Dublin seems to have been great, and Henry says that if Lord A. does not decline all demonstrations of popular feeling towards him, he will leave Ireland as Lord Fitzwilliam did, attended by the whole population. Yesterday I asked Fitzgerald[21] if it was true that Lord A. was recalled. He put on a long face, and said 'he did not know; _recalled_ he certainly was not.' I saw he was not disposed to be communicative, so I said no more; he, however, began again of his own accord, and asked me whether I thought, in the event of Lord A.'s coming away, that Francis Leveson would remain. I told him under what conditions he had taken the place, viz. that he was only to stay while Lord A. did; that circ.u.mstances might make a difference, but that I knew nothing. He said he had done remarkably well, given great satisfaction, and shown great discretion in a difficult situation; that the rock Lord A. had split upon was his vanity.

[21] [Right Hon. Vesey Fitzgerald, then President of the Board of Trade. He was raised to the peerage of the United Kingdom in 1835, as Baron Fitzgerald and Vesci.]

[Page Head: RECALL OF LORD ANGLESEY.]

January 5th, 1829 {p.150}

The exact history of what took place in Dublin is as follows:-- Lord Anglesey first of all desired George Villiers would get his letter to Dr. Curtis inserted in the newspaper. He took it to Shiel, who agreed to write as good an article as he could to go with it, and then he went to Dr. Murray to inform him (as Dr.

Curtis's friend) of the intended publication, as Curtis himself was absent, and his consent ought to have been previously obtained. He went afterwards to the Phoenix Park, and Lord Anglesey laid the whole case and correspondence before him. Some time ago the Duke wrote to Lord Anglesey proposing that O'Gorman Mahon and Steele should be removed from the Commission of the Peace on account of their conduct to the Sheriff of Clare. Lord Anglesey wrote word that the subject had engaged his attention, and he had laid the case before the law officers, who had reported to him that there were no grounds for any legal proceedings against them. 'How, therefore,' said the Lord-Lieutenant, 'could I degrade men against whom my law officers advised me that no charge could be brought?' This was one offence; and another, that he had countenanced Lord Cloncurry, who, being a member of the a.s.sociation, was unworthy to receive the King's representative and the Chancellor. Lord Anglesey warmly defended Lord Cloncurry as a magistrate and a man, and appealed to his known loyalty and respect for the King as a proof that he would never have done anything derogatory to his own situation. The Duke's letter he described to have been overbearing and insolent, Lord Anglesey's[22] temperate, but firm. Lord Anglesey declares that these were all the grounds of offence he had given. Five weeks elapsed, during which he heard nothing from the Duke, and at the end of that time he received his letter of recall, conceived nearly in these words:--'My dear Lord Anglesey,--I am aware of the impropriety of having allowed your letter to remain so long unanswered, but I wished to consult my colleagues, who were out of town. I have now done so, and they concur with me that with such a difference of opinion between the King's Minister and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the government of that country could not be conducted by you with advantage to the public service. I have therefore taken the King's pleasure on the subject, and he commands me to inform you that you will be immediately relieved from your government. I will give you the earliest information of the arrangement which will be made in consequence. Believe me, &c.' This is nearly the letter.[23] From Lord Anglesey George Villiers went to Shiel, and with him to O'Connell, to whom Lord A. desired he would communicate the event. O'Connell was dreadfully dejected, so much so that Shiel and G. Villiers were glad to go home and dine with him in order to calm him. They at length succeeded in doing so, and made him engage to abstain from any discussion of the recall in the a.s.sociation the next day (a promise which he did not keep). Shiel made a very fine speech in the a.s.sociation. Nothing, they say, can exceed the general feeling on the subject, and Lord Anglesey appears to be acting with great dignity and reserve; he wishes to decline all popular honours, and he put off going to the play, which he was to have done.

[22] [The correspondence of Lord Anglesey with the Duke of Wellington on these charges is now published in the 'Wellington Correspondence,' New Series, vol. v. p.

244.]

[23] [The letter itself is now published in the 'Wellington Correspondence,' New Series, vol. v. p. 366. Mr.

Greville's version of it differs in no material point from the original, though the language is slightly altered.]

January 7th, 1829 {p.152}

The Duke wrote to Francis Leveson to say he must not be surprised to hear that a letter would reach Lord Anglesey by that day's post, conveying to him his recall; that the King was so furious with him that he said he would make any sacrifice rather than allow him to remain there five minutes longer. His Secretary had repeatedly remonstrated with the Lord-Lieutenant on his imprudent language in Ireland, and on the tone of his letters to the Duke, but that he always defended both on principle. The Duke said that his letters were most offensive towards him, yet he continued to declare that he should have been glad to keep Lord Anglesey on but for the King. The Lord-Lieutenant did not go to the play, but his family did, and were received with great applause, although the pit was full of Orangemen. Lord Melville has refused the Lord-Lieutenancy.

January 11th, 1829 {p.153}

When George Villiers sent me the accounts of what had pa.s.sed in Ireland about Lord Anglesey's letter to Curtis I wrote him a long letter, in which I told him why I thought the letter and its publication were unjustifiable and indiscreet, and particularly cautioned him against connecting himself much with the agitator, on account of the harm it would do him here. He wrote me a long answer, defending Lord Anglesey and his measures, but I do not think he makes out a case for him, and if the Lord-Lieutenant makes in the House of Lords the defence which he proposes to make I think he will fail; but if he can keep Lord Plunket on his side, who is now said to be very eager about him, he will do.

Plunket is under the influence of Blake, who keeps, as George Villiers says, 'Lord Plunket's mind in his breeches' pocket.'

Lord Anglesey has behaved very well since the quarrel, declining all honours and expressions of public feeling.

[Page Head: THE KING AND THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.]

January 12th, 1829 {p.153}

Lord Mount Charles came to me this morning and consulted me about resigning his seat at the Treasury. He hates it and is perplexed with all that has occurred between the Duke and Lord Anglesey. I advised him to resign, feeling as he does about it. He told me that he verily believed the King would go mad on the Catholic question, his violence was so great about it. He is very angry with him and his father for voting as they do, but they have agreed never to discuss the matter at all, and his mother never talks to the King about it. Whenever he does get on it there is no stopping him. Mount Charles attributes the King's obstinacy to his recollections of his father and the Duke of York and to the influence of the Duke of c.u.mberland. He says that 'his father would have laid his head on the block rather than yield, and that he is equally ready to lay his head there in the same cause.' He is furious with Lord Anglesey, but he will be very much afraid of him when he sees him. Mount Charles was in the room when Lord Anglesey took leave of the King on going to Ireland, and the King said, 'G.o.d bless you, Anglesey! I know you are a true Protestant.'

Anglesey answered, 'Sir, I will not be considered either Protestant or Catholic; I go to Ireland determined to act impartially between them and without the least bias either one way or the other.' Lord Anglesey dined with Mount Charles the day before he went. The same morning he had been with the Duke and Peel to receive their last instructions, and he came to dinner in great delight with them, as they had told him they knew he would govern Ireland with justice and impartiality, and they would give him no instructions whatever. He showed me a letter from Mr. Harcourt Lees full of invectives against the Duke and lamentations at the recall, to show how the Protestants regretted him as well as the Catholics.

He then talked to me about Knighton, whom the King abhors with a detestation that could hardly be described. He is afraid of him, and that is the reason he hates him so bitterly. When alone with him he is more civil, but when others are present (the family, for instance) he delights in saying the most mortifying and disagreeable things to him. He would give the world to get rid of him, and to have either Taylor or Mount Charles instead, to whom he has offered the place over and over again, but Mount Charles not only would not hear of it, but often took Knighton's part with the King. He says that his language about Knighton is sometimes of the most unmeasured violence--wishes he was dead, and one day when the door was open, so that the pages could hear, he said, 'I wish to G.o.d somebody would a.s.sa.s.sinate Knighton.' In this way he always speaks of him and uses him. Knighton is greatly annoyed at it, and is very seldom there. Still it appears there is some secret chain which binds them together, and which compels the King to submit to the presence of a man whom he detests, and induces Knighton to remain in spite of so much hatred and ill-usage. The King's indolence is so great that it is next to impossible to get him to do even the most ordinary business, and Knighton is still the only man who can prevail on him to sign papers, &c. His greatest delight is to make those who have business to transact with him, or to lay papers before him, wait in his anteroom while he is lounging with Mount Charles or anybody, talking of horses or any trivial matter; and when he is told, 'Sir, there is Watson waiting,' &c., he replies, 'd.a.m.n Watson; let him wait.' He does it on purpose, and likes it.

[Page Head: CHARACTER OF GEORGE IV.]

This account corresponds with all I have before heard, and confirms the opinion I have long had that a more contemptible, cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist than this King, on whom such flattery is constantly lavished. He has a sort of capricious good-nature, arising however out of no good principle or good feeling, but which is of use to him, as it cancels in a moment and at small cost a long score of misconduct. Princes have only to behave with common decency and prudence, and they are sure to be popular, for there is a great and general disposition to pay court to them. I do not know anybody who is proof against their seductions when they think fit to use them in the shape of civility and condescension. The great consolation in all this is the proof that, so far from deriving happiness from their grandeur, they are the most miserable of all mankind. The contrast between their apparent authority and the contradictions which they practically meet with must be peculiarly galling, more especially to men whose minds are seldom regulated, as other men's are, by the beneficial discipline of education and early collision with their equals. There have been good and wise kings, but not many of them. Take them one with another they are of an inferior character, and this I believe to be one of the worst of the kind. The littleness of his character prevents his displaying the dangerous faults that belong to great minds, but with vices and weaknesses of the lowest and most contemptible order it would be difficult to find a disposition more abundantly furnished.

January 16th, 1829 {p.155}

I went to Windsor to a Council yesterday. There were the Duke, the Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Mint, Lord President, Lord Aberdeen, Peel, Melville, Ellenborough. The King kept us waiting rather longer than usual.

He looked very well, and was dressed in a blue great coat, all over gold frogs and embroidery. Lord Liverpool was there to give up the late Lord's Garter, and had an audience. He said to me afterwards that the King had asked him all sorts of questions about his family concerns, with which he seemed extraordinarily well acquainted, and to some of which he was puzzled to give an answer. The King is the greatest master of gossip in the world, and his curiosity about everybody's affairs is insatiable. I spoke to Peel about the Council books,[24] which are in the State Paper Office, and he promised they should be restored to the Council Office.

[24] [At the fire which took place at Whitehall in 1619 several volumes of the 'Council Register' were lost or dispersed. Some of these missing volumes were in the State Paper Office, and two are still in the British Museum.]

Just before I set off to Windsor I heard from Ireland, and this is an extract of the letter:--'Lord Anglesey received a letter from Peel this morning to the effect "that as he had written and published a letter such as no Lord-Lieutenant was justified in writing, it was his Majesty's pleasure that Lords Justices should be immediately appointed." Francis found him very smiling and glorious, but angry, and declaring that he would do just the same again if he had to choose his line of conduct.'

_a propos_ of Denman's silk gown, Mount Charles told me the other day that Denman wrote a most humble apology to the King, notwithstanding which the Duke of Wellington had great trouble in mollifying him. At last he consented, but wrote himself on the doc.u.ment that in consideration of his humble apology his Majesty forgave him, as he thought it became the King to forgive a subject, but desired this note might be preserved in the Treasury, where Mount Charles says it now is.[25]

[25] [This curious correspondence has now been published in the fifth volume of the Duke of Wellington's 'Despatches,' New Series, pp. 117 and 153. The cause of the quarrel was a Greek quotation from Dion which Denman had introduced into one of his speeches at the Queen's trial. In the King's answer to the memorial (which answer was drawn up by the Duke of Wellington) the following pa.s.sage occurs:-- 'The King could not believe that the Greek quotation referred to had occurred to the mind of the advocate in the eagerness and heat of his argument, nor that it was not intended, nor that it had not been sought for and suggested for the purpose of applying to the person of the Sovereign a gross insinuation.' Denman, however, prayed his Majesty to believe that 'no such insinuation was ever made by him, that the idea of it never entered his mind,' &c.

The truth about this quotation is this:--During the Queen's trial Dr. Parr, who was a warm supporter of the Queen and an intimate friend of Denman, employed himself in ransacking books for quotations which might be used in the defence. Thus he lit in Bayle's Dictionary, article 'Octavia,' upon the answer made by Pythias, one of the slaves of Octavia, to Tigellinus, when he was torturing the slaves of the Empress in order to convict her of adultery. The same answer occurs in substance in Tacitus' 'Annals,' book xiv.

cap. 60. This Parr sent to Denman, and Denman used it in his speech. The fact is, therefore, that the quotation had been 'sought for and suggested' for the express purpose of saying something personally offensive to the King. The King's resentment against Denman did not end here as will be seen lower down, where he refused to receive the Recorder's report through the Common Serjeant.]

January 21st, 1829 {p.156}

The sealed orders with which the ships have sailed from Plymouth, were orders to prevent the Portuguese (who have been sent away) from landing at Terceira.

Lady Westmeath was the woman meant in the article in the 'Times'

from Ireland about the pension to which Lord Anglesey would not agree. The story is very true. There was 700 disposable on the Pension Fund, and the Duke of Wellington desired 400 might be given to Lady Westmeath, which Lord Anglesey and the Secretary both protested against, and were resolved to resign rather than agree to it. They wrote to the Duke such strong remonstrances that he appears to have desisted from the design, for they heard no more of it. It is therefore false that this had anything to do with the recall, though it is by no means improbable that it served to alienate the Duke from the Marquis and to make him desire the more to get rid of him. This happened as long ago as last August, I think.

[Page Head: STATE OF RUSSIA.]