Chapter VIII

The statement hazarded in the next letter, of Sir W. Knighton's literary incapacity, is, we believe, unfounded. The memoir of this gentleman, edited by his widow, affords ample evidence to the contrary, and he enjoyed a large share of the King's confidence at this date, and subsequently. Lord King's motion for a further reduction of the Civil List, animadverted on in the same communication, was made on the 26th of March, and Mr. Canning's notice of motion for the admission of the Catholic Peers into the Imperial Legislature was given on the 29th; the motion was brought forward on the following day, and carried by a majority of five; on May the 10th, the second reading was carried by an increased majority of fourteen. The interest taken by the Duke of Buckingham in the question may be seen in some of the following letters:--

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Board of Control, April 1, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

Depend upon it there must be some mistake or fumble about your
application for the _entree_. The fact is, there is no distinct
person at present to whom the reference is had at Brighton, and I
have heard that the King complains bitterly of the inability of
Knighton, who is quite incapable of writing a letter; whether this
is true or not I cannot absolutely say, but I believe it from the
quarter it came; it seems impossible that the King should have
received the letter, or it must have escaped his memory on Thursday
when Wynn was with him, otherwise he would have made some
observation to him upon it. But pray don't hurry any further step:
I will desire Mrs. F. to mention the thing to the Duchess and see
what is said upon it; I doubt if she is in correspondence with the
King.

I did not mention all the jobs for Bloomfield; he is to have a
Governorship of Fort Charles, which Lord Stewart gives up to him,
and the promise of a foreign mission, in addition to what I before
enumerated to you. Lord King's conduct is worse than your
brother's, who was not at the moment aware of "his honourable
friend's" intention, and really does not know the details of your
father's conduct as teller. I find from Charles W---- that Lord
Grenville is equally outrageous with Lord King. It is evident that
the Mountain are moving heaven and earth to lower you and your
friends, but it will not do. I dread all the discussions arising
from the Catholic question; Canning consulted no one, and I really
believe not a soul was aware of his intention previous to his
giving the notice. It will place Plunket in a very awkward
predicament, for it must bring on the argument on the general
question; you have no reason, however, as far as I can understand
it, to complain of a want of communication, for it was Canning's
_move_, and his alone. James Stanhope told me this morning he was
coming into Parliament immediately; I think he said it was
Houldsworth's seat, but am not quite sure. The Agricultural Report
is to be made to-day, and Lord Londonderry gives notice for a
motion upon it, I suppose to bring in a Bill after the holidays. We
shall get through the Miscellaneous Estimates to-day, and shall
have advanced altogether most extremely in Parliamentary business,
much beyond the usual proceedings, so as to secure the House being
up in time, provided no unforeseen events occur.

Ever most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

April 3, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

If I felt that any one vote was likely to be lost to the general
Catholic question in the event of the success of Canning's motion,
I should be very much disposed to agree in your view of the
impolicy of agitating it. But if there be a reasonable probability
(as we have been told) that there are those who, adverse to a
measure of general concession, would accede to this, I should
anticipate a directly opposite result to what you expect. Supposing
the Bill to be carried, or even to meet with an increased support
in the House of Lords, upon neither of which points am I myself
very sanguine, it could not fail to be a stepping-stone to further
success. Independent of the immediate gain of six votes when they
are most wanted, there are many who, having once voted for a motion
of concession, though not intending to proceed further, would feel
themselves drawn in, and perceive that they cannot maintain that if
it be safe for a Roman Catholic to exercise the functions of the
Peerage, he must necessarily overturn the Constitution if elected
to the House of Commons or appointed a justice of the peace. Our
adversaries are perfectly right when they say that no breach can be
made in the present system without necessarily entailing the fall
of the whole of it.

I have, however, already told you that in my own opinion, this is
so generally felt that there will be scarcely any difference in the
division upon the particular and the general question. That it will
be thought, as it is in fact, merely a new road to attain the same
object. At the same time it is perfectly true, that by this means
we get rid, or rather postpone, many of the difficult details which
we have to encounter; and that the case of the Peers, who are
deprived of a vested interest which they possessed without the
slightest inconvenience to the public, long after the other
Catholics were disabled from exercising their civil functions, is
infinitely the strongest which exists.

Altogether, though the motion is brought forward not only without
consultation, but even without the previous knowledge of most of
the friends of the Catholics, still, my impression of its justice
is such that even if I had a much stronger opinion of its impolicy
than I had, I would earnestly support it; and I cannot but feel the
utmost anxiety that under the particular circumstances in which you
stand, the line which Lord C---- has taken upon the subject, and
the disposition which exists to represent your conduct in the most
unfavourable light, that you would reconsider the matter before you
resolve to separate yourself from the rest of those who have so
long advocated this measure. Upon questions of _right_ and _wrong_
every man must judge for himself, but on those of policy and
expediency it seems to me that the opinion of the great body and
the most eminent of those who contend for the same object ought to
prevail.

I have just heard that Plunket has returned, and is desirous to see
me. If I can have any conversation with him before the post goes
out I will write again, if not, to-morrow. I hear that he has no
apprehension of any jealousy on the part of the Irish of the claims
of the Peers being brought forward separately. He is extremely
distressed between the strong wish of Lord Londonderry to keep
back, and of the Opposition to force forward the question.

My own opinion is, as I have already told you, that the
conversation which passed on Friday in the House when reported in
Ireland will produce so strong a feeling in favour of the latter
course that he cannot resist it.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Board of Control, April 4, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

I dined yesterday at the Duke of Gloucester's, and, sitting by the
Duchess, I had an opportunity of talking to her, and find she has
no correspondence at all with the King, and is evidently not in
communication with him but when he comes to town; and as I knew she
tells every thing on earth to the Duke, and that he gossips again
to his friends in Opposition, I thought it better not to say
another word on the subject of your application to the King.

I am quite satisfied of the proper way of recurring to the subject,
which is that Wynn should mention it to Lord Liverpool as a private
hint, and it would be immediately settled; for be assured the King
does not object, but that it is owing to some mistake, or loss of
letter, and requiring an explanation--through Wynn would be much
the easiest mode, and not make it of too much importance; for I
think you should consider the thing as a matter almost of course,
and not place more importance upon it than that which of course
belongs to the incivility of not answering your letter, and this
really I cannot but think is unintentional.

Lady J---- is come back from Paris, abusing the K---- most
violently, and regretting she ever was such an idiot as to suffer
her boys to go to the Coronation. In short, there is nothing she
does not say against him--and what do you think for? Because he has
conferred the Dukedom of Buckingham on you, when Lord J---- was the
proper representative of the title. This is very good, but I am not
sorry the King should find these Opposition ladies not quite so
disposed towards him.

Plunket still undecided as to his motion, which, for my own part, I
hope he will not bring on, for be assured neither his nor Canning's
has the chance of succeeding in the House of Lords, and the
Lansdownes are only urging it because they see, or flatter
themselves they see, the prospect of discussion thereby in the
Cabinet.

The Report, as was expected, from the Agricultural Committee, is a
miserable performance, concocted by Bankes, and affording no one
benefit of any sort or kind, saving this, which in my opinion is
valuable--an acknowledgment that Parliament can do nothing for the
relief of the farmer.

I think Lord King looks foolish and awkward, as well he ought. His
conduct is universally blamed.

Ever, my dear Duke,

Most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

P.S.--The King comes to town on the 18th to remain for some little
time. Does not return to Brighton, but, on his leaving town, goes
to the Cottage at Windsor.

The Catholic question as introduced this session by Mr. Canning, created more than its customary amount of political excitement, because, though one in which the Duke of Buckingham, his family and friends, had long taken a consistent interest, it was pressed forward by the Opposition to embarrass the recent coalition and the Government. The reader will shortly see the result.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, April 4, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I called to-day upon Plunket, and found him still in great doubt as
to the course which it might be expedient for him to pursue on the
Catholic question during the present session.

The bias of his own mind is evidently to defer the agitation of it
till the next session, and he dwelt much on the disadvantage which
might arise if Lord Londonderry, though supporting the measure,
should cool in the active personal exertion to influence votes and
to fix the wavering which he exhibited last session. Altogether, he
considered the question as too important for him to decide upon
singly, and therefore was disposed to request a meeting of its
principal Parliamentary friends on Tuesday, the 16th, the day
before the Houses re-assemble. In the interim he hoped to hear
again from Ireland, and to see Lord Grenville. He would also be
very anxious to communicate with you on the subject. It is obvious
that if it is to be brought forward, it must be before Canning's,
as it would be absurd to carry up the general measure after the
Lords have rejected the more limited one.

My uncle Tom is very favourably inclined to Canning's proposition,
as he thinks that the admission of the general proposition is too
great a change to expect at once from the House of Lords, while the
proposition of the strongest of the detailed points, one by one,
might be more likely to succeed. With this view, he told me that he
had himself more than once suggested trying a personal Bill to
enable the present Duke of Norfolk to sit and vote, and afterwards
for the other peers, leaving the laws as they stand. This, I
confess, I should not be so well inclined to. It will be an
advantage, if we are to fight it in the proposed shape, that we are
at once rid of all the details of oaths, securities, &c., for I
conclude the consciences of the Roman Catholic Peers will, if the
declaration be omitted, be disposed to swallow the Oath of
Supremacy without a single wry face, which will be a most useful
example to the other Catholics, and will of itself go far to bring
the priests into order. Plunket does not apprehend any jealousy of
the limited measure from Ireland, as he thinks that they will
consider it as a stepping-stone, and will be much alive to the gain
of six votes.

Plunket mentioned confidentially the opinion of Lord Wellesley in
favour of deferring the general Bill till next year, for which
likewise Lord Londonderry and Lord Melville seemed very anxious.
How far what has passed in Parliament, and the eagerness of the
Opposition, may drive the Catholics in Ireland forward, he could
not calculate, but otherwise conceived them to be content to
acquiesce in its postponement. At all events, I am most desirous
that, whether you entirely approve of the manner in which the
question is brought forward or not, you would acquiesce in the
course to be determined upon, which I am sure is of the greatest
importance to the public character of us all.

Ever most affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

LORD GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Dropmore, April 8, 1822.

You know I have quite done with political speculations, and
discussions of every kind. If Canning's motion succeeds (as I
conclude it will) in the House of Commons, and comes up to the
House of Lords, I can have no doubt of supporting it, as far as my
vote, or more probably, my proxy, may extend, because it is one of
the points that I have always most strongly urged, and particularly
in my speech, even, of last year; and also because it really does
seem to me that such a motion follows as a natural and undeniable
consequence from any opinion entertained by the friends of the
general measure, that next year would be more favourable than this
for the discussion of the main question, in so far as it concerns
the great body of the Irish Catholics.

The conduct of that body has certainly been often such as to show
the utmost blindness as to what was likely to advance or obstruct
their cause. But I cannot think them so ignorant as not to see the
infinite advantage which the success of such a motion would give
their friends in any future discussion.

My own opinion, indeed, is that it is in something of this
piecemeal way that their object will ultimately be obtained; and I
should not be without considerable hope of seeing Canning's measure
carried, even in this year, if I felt quite sure that it would have
fair play given it.

As to the prudence of postponing or bringing forward the main
question this year I have formed no opinion, and I mean to form
none. I have done with such speculations; I have entire confidence
in Plunket's judgment and uprightness; and my greatest fear is that
of seeing the measure taken out of his hands, to fall into worse,
and worse I am sure they will be into whatever hands other than his
it can fall. He is coming here on Friday, and if you wish to say
anything to him on the subject, you cannot do better than meet him.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Englefield Green, April 10, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

The note you have enclosed me makes the thing more embarrassing,
and I have been puzzling my brain how I can possibly promote the
object; but I really know not in what way I could move. I could
write a _private and confidential letter_ to Lord Conyngham (whom I
know intimately), stating the case, and expressing your
embarrassment about it; but I don't know whether you would approve
of this, and I cannot think of any other means. Let me know by
return of post, and I will act accordingly. Perhaps you would write
yourself to him, quite as a private friend (if you know him well
enough), but if you had rather I should, only say so. I am quite
sure, from Bloomfield's letter, it is meant to be done; but the
_chief_ is so strange and inconsistent, and I suppose so perfectly
incapable of going through with his business, that unless he has a
man at his elbow constantly to jog him on, he is not to be depended
on for one moment.

I shall remain here till the day before the meeting. I dread any
confusion that may arise from the jumble of the Catholic question.
Be assured, whatever one may think of this question, it is not one
that the public will go with you upon, in any measure of hostility
to the Government, much less of separation, and as to our carrying
it, or preventing its being carried, the question rests so entirely
on the House of Lords, that it is there and there only that it will
be decided; and as long as we have the present Chancellor and Lord
Liverpool, it is out of the question, unless the King were to take
a part, which he certainly will not. Why, then, what would be the
result? We should separate, the Government would go on, and we
should have another sixteen years of opposition. I am arguing only
on the idea of our taking a line different or more violent than the
other best supporters of the measure. I mean Plunket, Londonderry,
Canning, &c. &c. My idea is that the latter does not mean mischief
so much as the regaining some little character and importance which
he has so justly lost.--The King comes to the Cottage here as early
as he possibly can after Easter. I believe him to be _decidedly_
ill; his legs swell, and when they are reduced, he has violent
attacks in his chest and head. His appetite is bad, and he is very
low about himself.

Faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

P.S.--In looking at Bloomfield's letter again, I see he says _the
King said he had given the necessary orders_. Surely this would
justify you in writing to the Duke of Montrose to ask the question.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, April 12, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I yesterday communicated your sentiments on the proposed manner of
bringing forward the Catholic question to Plunket, who expressed
himself highly flattered by the confidence which you placed in his
opinion. He has to-day gone down to Dropmore, and returns
to-morrow. The outline of the plan which he is disposed to
recommend to remedy the most pressing grievances on the subjects of
the tithe, is to enable incumbents to agree for a composition for
twenty-one years with the _landlords_, and the tithes then to
be collected as county rates, and the receipts to be good in
payment of rent. This is the outline; but the detail must be matter
of great difficulty, since, though this may apply to future
contracts, I fear that as the majority of the peasantry are for
election purposes life tenants, it will not be easy to increase
their rent to the landlords by the amount of what will be payable
for tithes. As yet this has only been discussed by him with Lord
Liverpool and Goulburn, so of course you will feel the necessity of
not communicating upon it with any one.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, April 16, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

The proposed meeting on the course which it might be expedient to
adopt respecting the Catholic question, took place this morning. As
the persons invited to it were only those members of the House of
Commons who had last year been named to bring in the Bill, I
advised Fremantle not to come, since it would only excite jealousy
to see us endeavouring to secure a majority by introducing any one
who had not on former occasions been called into council on the
subject.

The persons present were Tierney, Newport, Parnell, Canning, Grant,
Phillimore, Plunket, and myself.

Tierney expressed a very strong opinion as to the detriment the
general question had received from not having been taken up
immediately upon the meeting of Parliament, from Lord Londonderry's
declaration on the first day against any discussion of it, and from
Plunket's language on Canning's notice, but declined giving any
advice as to the course to be pursued under existing circumstances
at so late a period of the session, and after Canning's notice of
the limited motion.

Newport, though agreeing in regretting that earlier measures had
not been taken, yet distinctly admitted that the question had so
much varied by what had taken place, that it could not now be
agitated with advantage.

Grant thought that in the first instance the general motion had
better have been brought forward, but that Lord Londonderry's
declaration and Plunket's opinion, to which he was disposed
implicitly to defer, were sufficient reasons for delaying it till
next year. Altogether the result will be that Plunket will declare
his decided intention of postponing it till next year.

Canning is sanguine in his expectation of increased support or
rather neutrality of former adversaries, but Tierney doubts whether
members of the House of Commons will be as ready to come to town on
the limited as the general measure. He admitted, however, that the
call which has been ordered for the 24th may go far to remove this
objection.

I find the Orange party are loud in their abuse of Lord Wellesley
for shutting himself up at the Phoenix Park, lying in bed all day,
seeing nobody, and only communicating with Secretary Gregory by
letter. Indeed, I believe that the latter is more than he often
favours Secretaries Peel and Goulburn with.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

Your account of the King's health rather surprises me, as we all
thought him, when last in town, to be looking decidedly better than
he had been, for some time.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

House of Commons, Five o'clock, April 18, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

I should have sent your note to Canning, but I have just seen him
and put it into his hands, saying that I had been prevented from
attending the meeting of Mr. Plunket, or I should have taken that
opportunity of explaining to him by your desire your views on his
proposed question: that I could not do it better now than by
putting into his hands a note which you had written to me on the
subject, and which you had since desired me to show him. He
immediately read your note, thanked me, and thus the matter ended.
He was interrupted by persons coming to speak to him, and sitting
behind him (which I did at the time), he could not well have
entered into any discussion had he been so disposed, indeed there
was not much to be said to me upon it.

I came to town purposely at your desire to attend Plunket's
meeting, and had no conception it was a select party till I got a
note from Wynn, describing it as such to me.

The King is come to town in bad humour at breaking up his Brighton
party, and determined to stay as short a time, and to do as little
in the way of public _appearances_, as possible, and which his
Ministers are strongly urging him to do. I suppose you will come up
for the Drawing-room if you don't for the Levee. We are in much
better spirits, in general appearances and prospects in the House,
and though Ireland will create much discussion, and also
Londonderry's agriculture propositions, still there is no doubt we
shall get the Session much sooner closed than usual. You shall hear
from me, if anything occurs, from day to day, before you come up.

Ever most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, April 25, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

It would give me the greatest pleasure to deliver your message to
the King, if I could find the opportunity of any other business to
desire an audience, but I think, upon consideration, you will think
that it might more properly be made the subject of a letter from
yourself to Sir Andrew Barnard, as Gentleman-in-Waiting, or
directly to the King, than of a note from me.

I am myself such a mere novice in matters of etiquette, that I
should not place the least confidence in my own judgment on such a
point, but should readily submit to yours, if I had not this
morning consulted my uncle Tom, who gave the same opinion which I
had previously formed. I have not yet had an opportunity of any
conversation with C----, having only seen him last night while I
was in labour of a speech, but I shall be very glad to see the
paper which you mention.

Grant's speech was excellent, better than I ever before heard from
him, but I do not believe you or any other Lord-Lieutenant would
like him as a secretary, as his warmest friends admit his
inefficiency and idleness. His total neglect of his correspondence
with this country, after repeated friendly admonition, was really
inexcusable. We are nearly in the same state with respect to Lord
Wellesley, which I trust is only owing to his illness. It is very
well for a Lord-Lieutenant or Secretary to say that they act on
their own responsibility, but during the sitting of Parliament
those upon whom that responsibility really and efficiently falls,
have a _right_ to expect to know their views of the situation
of Ireland and of the course to be pursued. Upon none of the great
points of Tithes, Magistracy, Police, &c., have we yet heard a
syllable, nor any view of the state of the country, for the last
month. Were Lord Wellesley well, I should certainly write to him
myself to tell him confidentially the complaint which arises from
his silence, but under the circumstances of his illness I had
rather that even if you should write to him you should not advert
to what I have mentioned. Adieu. I must go down for Reform in
Parliament, which owing to Lord Londonderry's hoarseness, would
rest on Peel and me, if Canning does not, as I expect, take the
labouring oar, and be the grand reformer of the night.

Ever yours affectionately,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, April 25, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I have been to the Drawing-room and brought back for a wonder such
a headache that I cannot write to you as fully as I should wish.
The King only asked me how I did, but did not give me an
opportunity of making your excuses. He looks well, I think, but I
certainly have heard reports of dropsy on the chest, which agree
too much with yours. The debate last night was very interesting.
Rice, Grant, and Plunket, full of information and excellent
speeches, the rest very indifferent.

Ellis's furious tirade against the Catholics laid him open to a
severe drubbing from Plunket, yet to say the plain truth, I fear
that he was but too correct, and that the distinctive feature of
the present conspiracy is, that in every part of Ireland it is
exclusively Catholic both in its objects and composition.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, April 25, 1822.

MY DEAR LORD,

I take the liberty of forwarding to your Grace a copy of the speech
I made on introducing my Bill to amend the Marriage Act, which I
have published at the request of Lord Londonderry and others, who I
presume think that the facts alluded to, and the cases cited, may
essentially assist the Bill when it reaches the Upper House.

We are, I think, upon the whole going on well in the House of
Commons. I confess my mind has been much relieved since the
discussion on Sir John Newport's motion on Monday. Plunket's speech
was everything that could be wished, and set us quite right with
the House as to Ireland; it had also had the effect of indirectly
giving a lift to the general question respecting the Catholics.

On my return to London last week I passed a day at Dropmore. I
found Lord Grenville inclined to criticise most severely the Report
of the Agricultural Committee, but exceedingly anxious on the
subject of Canning's Bill. I must say I think the Agricultural
Report bad in every sense, but as I apprehend Lord Londonderry does
not mean to act in conformity with the spirit in which it is drawn
up, I trust it will be harmless as to effect.

I suppose Canning's Bill will pass our House--it will be a severe
blow to the cause if it does not; it is reported that Lambton and
Co. are anxious to vote against it, because Canning brings it in.
In the House of Lords, perhaps, it will have more votes than the
general question.

I cannot conclude this party communication without expressing the
very sincere regret I feel that your Grace should still be
suffering from indisposition, but I trust that you now only want to
recruit your strength.

Believe me, your obliged and faithful,

JOSEPH PHILLIMORE.

P.S.--The speech would have been out last week, but the proofs were
unfortunately sent to a wrong address to me in the country, and I
was some days before I could recover them.

Political partisanship at this time sometimes exerted a pernicious influence over well-meaning men, hurrying them into the avowal of sentiments which under other circumstances they would long have hesitated to express. In this way a distinguished member of the peerage committed himself by some remarks on the conduct of the Duke of Buckingham, which the latter treated with characteristic spirit.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Stanhope Street, April 29, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

I have just seen the Duke of Bedford's answer to your last letter,
which leaves you no alternative but to come to town. The whole
attack has been a premeditated one, and of the most unjust and
illiberal nature. I think the manner you have taken it up is
honourable to your character, and what every man who has a proper
feeling must commend. The thing does not seem to have been
whispered abroad.

I will come to you the moment you come to town, if you will let me
know. I shall be in the House of Commons upon Canning's motion. Sir
W---- W---- has acted extremely well on the occasion, and really
feels as your kindest and dearest friend ought; solely occupied in
the whole proceeding by a regard to your honour, and character, and
feeling. Nothing, I think, could have been better than the wording
of both your letters.

Ever most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

LORD GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Dropmore, May 3, 1822.

I need not tell you with how deep an interest I received my
brother's letter and yours this morning. I think nothing can
possibly have passed more properly, or more satisfactorily, and I
derive the highest pleasure from it. It is no doubt a painful thing
to be reduced to this course, but whatever be the objections to it,
surely those are alone answerable for them whose wanton
intemperance of abuse places men under the necessity of thus
acting, in self-defence. The Duke of Bedford's disavowal, in the
conclusion of the business, seems to have been manly and
unequivocal, and the only real atonement he could make for the
original most unprovoked insult.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Stanhope Street, May 7, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

I am sure it must give you pleasure, as it does me, to hear from
all sides, and all sorts of persons, one uniform expression of
approbation of your conduct. When one is forced to take a step
which places one's character before the public tribunal, it is most
gratifying to feel afterwards that the step has been approved and
sanctioned; that this is the case, I have not the shadow of a
doubt, and I would not say so to you, if I had not received the
most unequivocal proofs of it. I hear that even at Brookes' the
comparison is greatly in your favour. No one can deny that your
adversary has retracted his words, though he has done so in the
only manly and honourable manner he could do it. Yesterday Charles
Long conversed with me a great deal upon it, and said you had not
only done benefit to the general cause of Government, but that you
had served to put down that personal and unjust mode of proceeding
which was gaining ground every day. He attacked the conduct of the
Duke of B----, as being most improper and unjust; he said he had
had an opportunity of repeating the same language the day before to
the Duke of York, who, although a great personal friend of the Duke
of B----, could not but admit that you were compelled to act as you
had done, and that you had done so in the most dignified and
gallant manner.

I wish I could speak as flatteringly of the general conduct of the
Government, but I own every day lessens my confidence in them;
there is such a complete want of steadiness, and of an open manly
uniformity of conduct, that I see no hopes of its going on.

Although I have sealed my letter, I write to tell you a thing I
forgot--namely, that Talbot of Malahide came to me yesterday,
saying he considered the question to be of a personal nature, and
feeling the highest regard, affection, and gratitude to your
family, he could not think of voting upon it. That his party making
it a general question, he could not vote against it, but that he
should go away, which he did. I thought this a very handsome
conduct, and said I should certainly take care to communicate it to
you.

W. H. F.

DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, May 11, 1822.

MY DEAR LORD DUKE,

Lest Wynn or Fremantle should not write to-day (for it has so
happened that I have seen neither of them), I just send your Grace
a few lines to say that the Catholic cause prospered last night,
the numbers being for the second reading of the Bill, 235; Noes,
223. Lord Duncannon told me that he had _never_ known a greater
exertion made against any measure than against the second reading
of this Bill. There were twenty-seven pairs in the House--_i.e._,
of persons who appeared in the House. My own idea is that all
further opposition to the measure in our House will be abandoned.
It certainly is most satisfactory to find the House of Commons so
steady on this point; but I must own I think the experiment has
been a hazardous one; if the measure had failed, the general
question must have been damaged. However, the result is most
favourable, and I should not be very much astonished if this Bill
was to pass your House. The most remarkable incident of last night
was the declaration of Mr. Skeffington (Lord Oriel's son), that he
had come to the conviction that the Catholic question must be
carried sooner or later.

I hear from all quarters that the Duke of York's canvass against
the Bill has been most active. Peel certainly took a higher tone
than he did last year. You will have heard from Wynn that the Swiss
mission, the general question respecting missions, and the repeal
of the Act which commuted offices for pensions, are to be made
vital questions (as the phrase is). At this I exceeding rejoice.
The post is going out.

Believe me,

Your Grace's most faithfully,

J. PHILLIMORE.

The long threatened inquiry into the diplomatic appointment given to Mr. Henry W. Wynn came on on the 14th of May, when Mr. Lennard in the House of Commons moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the diplomatic expenses of the Government. The result is thus described:--

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Friday.

MY DEAR B----,

It was yesterday determined that the motion respecting Henry's
mission on Tuesday, and the foreign missions in general for the
following day, should both be considered as vital questions,
decisive of the existence of the Administration. The case on the
former is very strong. Londonderry will state that at the Congress
of Vienna it had been decided that each of the great Powers should
keep Ministers of calibre (_quere_, great bores) there. The reason
of this was principally with the design of preventing the Cantons
from falling back into their former dependence on France, in
compliance with which it will be seen that each of them has
Ministers there of the same rank with Henry. The general diplomatic
arrangement was then laid before Parliament by estimate, in 1815
referred to a Committee, and acted upon. When Stratford Canning
came away, the mission was first intended for Foster, then for
Clanwilliam; and if Henry had declined, it would have been given to
another person.

With respect to the general question, it will be found that the
expenditure is reduced 20,000_l._ below the estimate of 1815,
and besides that, there will this year be the 10 per cent. upon all
salaries. Lord Londonderry has to-day a meeting of all men in
office to communicate this resolution to.

It is singular enough that in each of the three first divisions,
upon propositions the most adverse--viz., Webb Hall's, Ricardo, and
Althorpe's--the minority should have been 24, 24, and 25, though
composed of perfectly different persons.

Peel shows, I think, more spirit and good judgment as to the course
which we ought to pursue, than any man in the Cabinet.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Stanhope Street, May 16, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

You will probably have heard from others the success of our whip
yesterday. Nothing could be better; and, though probably our
numbers may not be so many to-day, yet I should hope the relative
strength of the division may be equal. The debate was all on our
side, as well as the feeling of the House. Lord Nugent told me he
should not vote to-day, nor should Lord Ebrington. They show their
good taste in this. I understand Neville is very likely to vote
with us.

We are in better spirits, though the money question still hangs a
dead weight. The South Sea have refused the contract, and
Lushington told me last night the Bank would take the contract. I
fear this will commit the Government more and more with the Bank,
which has too much power already.

Ever yours,

W. H. F.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, May 15, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I agree entirely with what you say in your letter to Phillimore as
to the absurdity of the distinction of _vital_ and _indifferent_
points. All ought to be vital.

This is the course which Peel every day recommends. He has lately
taken a much bolder and decided tone both in Parliament and
Cabinet, and I have little doubt means to run for the lead of the
House of Commons. It appears to me very probable that his object is
to break up the Government, in the expectation that it will be
impossible for the Opposition to substitute anything which can
stand three months, and that he may then mould and form it at his
pleasure. He has himself spoken to me of the advantage which would
result from our retiring, and the certainty that we must return to
power within three months. Does he think that that period would be
sufficient for Opposition to pass the Catholic question?

Wilberforce's disclaimer of any intention to reflect on me was _ex
proprio motu_. It is curious that the _Morning Chronicle_, which
not only inserted the misrepresentation, but made it the object of
a leading paragraph, afterwards omitted the contradiction. This I
was told, but on examination find it is not true.

Report states that we are to have large divisions both to-day and
to-morrow, and that all the loose fish come into our net.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

I have stated to Lord Londonderry and Peel, the impossibility of my
supporting the Alien Bill, or interfering to persuade my friends to
do it, but have assured them that I shall not dissuade them from
it. I added that my wish would be to stay away, as I had done on
the two last occasions of its renewal, but that I could not
absolutely pledge myself to this, since I might be compelled to
come down to answer comments on my absence.

Pray tell me whether you have procured any clue which may enable us
to _patronize_ a newspaper.

DR. PHILLIMORE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Doctors' Commons, May 17, 1822.

MY DEAR LORD DUKE,

The debate took a turn last night we had not at all anticipated.
Warre never mentioned Henry Wynn but in terms of civility and
courtesy, and not only disclaimed all personal attack against him,
but also every imputation against the arrangements which had led to
his appointment. Lord Londonderry followed Warre, and explained the
case, &c., &c.; and the only other person who took any part in the
debate was Lord Normanby, who distinctly also declared against all
allusion to the individual who held the appointment; and he had
scarcely proceeded thus far before the House became so impatient
that he was all but coughed down. Under these circumstances there
was no opening for any of us, which for some reasons I regret,
though upon the whole nothing could be more satisfactory than the
tone and temper of the debate. I think the abstinence from personal
attack must have been the result of previous arrangement, probably
the more sober ones refused to concur in the vote on any other
terms. A weaker case was never made out. Newport stayed away.
Calcraft went out just before the division. Talbot, member for the
County of Dublin, sent a message to Wynn by Plunket, to say that he
would not vote against his brother. Carew, member for the County of
Wexford, made a similar communication to me. Neville, I believe,
voted with us; and Ebrington stayed away. Holmes told me that
twenty-four came to the door after it was closed, of whom nineteen
belonged to us.

The most serious business we have now to look forward to is the new
financial arrangement; and I must own that I dread the difficulties
in which Van may involve us.

Believe me, your Grace's very faithful,

JOSEPH PHILLIMORE.

P.S.--The whole debate last night did not occupy two hours.

The Catholic Peers' Bill stands for the third reading to-night; it
is not to be opposed, at least not by those who have taken the lead
against it. I hear that Lords Caledon and Gosford, Gosse and Wilton
will vote for the Bill, the two first have hitherto always voted
against the Catholics, the two latter have not voted on the
question; an Irish bishop is also to vote with us. On the other
hand, Lords Camden and Clancarty will not vote, and they have
supported always the general measure. The Archbishop of York told
me he thought several of the opposers of the general measure would
stay away: this, I understand from other quarters, is the course he
intends to adopt. Lord Grenville, I believe, will come to London
for the debate in the House of Lords. I am afraid that the Bill
will not be carried, but I am very sanguine in thinking that the
majority in the Upper House will be very considerably diminished.

Wilberforce made a point of staying to vote with us last night.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, May 17.

MY DEAR B----,

I am on the whole extremely well satisfied with the issue of the
two last debates, as the Opposition have entirely failed in the
establishment of any case whatever, and did not appear to produce
any effect on the House. Talbot of Malahide went away, expressly on
the ground of declining a question which affected any connexion of
yours personally. Newport also was absent, as were Ebrington and
George. Neville, Wilberforce, Banks, and most of the country
gentlemen voted with us. The places of several of those who stayed
away from the Opposition were supplied by the Ponsonby's and
Fitzwilliam's connexions, who had been absent the preceding night
on account of Lord Fitzwilliam's death.

I have already told you how much embarrassment I feel about the
Alien Bill. Read your own speech of the 18th of June, 1816, and
mine of the 20th of May in the same year, and I think that you will
agree that we are a good deal hampered.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

We read the Catholic Bill a third time to-day. I am told that the
second reading in the Lords will be fixed for the 31st of May.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

East India Board, May 20, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

The Duke of Portland has undertaken the management of Canning's
Bill in the House of Lords. I fear that so long a postponement of
it as you suggest, will hardly be thought expedient for the
interests of the Bill. It had been much wished that it should be
brought forward this week, but on account of Epsom it has been
deferred till the following Friday. I shall be very sorry if you
are prevented from attending, under all the particular
circumstances in which you stand, and should even think that it
might be worth while for you to come up and return next day. Lord
Clare, Lord Gosford, Lord Caledon, and Lord Gage are mentioned
among the new votes expected, but I am told that there are ten of
them. Lord Headfort's proxy has been forgotten, and as he is in
Italy cannot now be obtained. Lord Camden and Lord Clancarty will
not vote. Could not you get Lord Torrington's proxy? I think he
used to give you charge of it. Bulkeley hangs undecided about
coming or staying away. Old St. Vincent is to take his seat and
make a proxy. Lord Buckinghamshire is not yet ascertained.

You do not mention anything on the subject of the Alien Bill,
which, as I told you, I feel considerable difficulty about from the
part which we have both taken. With respect to the Finance plan, I
feel convinced that it must end where it ought to have begun, in an
appropriation of part of the Sinking Fund, and that this will be
done with more or less disguise and humbug, but that no regard for
consistency will be sufficient to prevent a measure so essentially
necessary.

I will try what I can do to obtain a postponement of the Catholic
Bill for you, but have little hope of success.

Ever affectionately your,

C. W. W.

Thirty or forty years ago the public press was managed with much less talent and principle than the respectable portion of it now possesses. Personality and scurrility appear to have gone out of fashion, and such attacks as that from which the Duke of Buckingham suffered in the columns of a provincial paper, are of very rare occurrence.

LORD GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Dropmore, May 21, 1822.

I learn from my brother that the Duke of Portland is to move the
second reading of Canning's Bill, and that they talk of the 31st
for it; that day being opportunely hitched in between the two
important epochs of Ascot and Epsom. But these arrangements of days
for Parliamentary business are always so uncertain, and so liable
to be varied up to the last moment, that I have never found one got
much previous communication of them; nor do I, to speak fairly,
think that the want of it affords the smallest ground of offence.
As to the yeomanry arrangements, it does not seem to me possible
that the day of this motion could have been fixed in time to enable
you to reconcile those two engagements.

I shall be sorry if you are absent from the discussion of this
Bill, for a thousand reasons that make one wish you present at it,
and I still hope you will contrive to run up for that night only.
But if that really cannot be, I will very willingly hold your
proxy, supposing that I do not in the interval (and it is now
little likely I should) receive some one that I cannot transfer. I
now hold only Lord Carysfort's.

On the other subject on which you write to me it is more difficult
to advise. The least troublesome course no doubt is that which I
have always pursued--to treat, and unaffectedly to consider, the
whole tribe of newspaper libellers as unworthy of the smallest
notice. And this was, on the first impression, the opinion which I
expressed the other day to my brother, who wrote to me on this
matter, in consequence of something your son had said to him. On
reflection I do not feel as sure as at first, that I was right in
this opinion, as applicable to your case and to the Aylesbury
paper. To any idea of a complaint against him in the House of Lords
I feel utterly averse. My recollection does not serve me to
remember any instance since Lord Sandwich and Bishop Warburton in
the beginning of the last reign, in which the House has interfered
in case of general libel. I myself brought a printer before them
for an attack on Bishop Watson, but then that, if I am not
mistaken, was a case of attack for words _spoken in Parliament_,
and not for general political conduct. If you prosecute, the right
course is certainly that of _information_ in the King's Bench; for
it would be most unseemly to allege that your character has really
been _endamaged_ by such ribaldry.

On the question itself, whether to prosecute or not, I really feel
myself incompetent to advise. I have already said that my first
impression was against it, but further consideration of the subject
has so shaken that opinion, that I should be sorry now you laid the
least stress upon it. Every man who goes into a court of law, and
especially every man who attacks a newspaper there, does, under our
blessed system of newspaper government, expose himself to a
lottery, the chances of which no man can foresee, and out of which
it would be much more desirable to keep himself. But, then, in this
as in other cases, one may be driven to the wall, and obliged to do
that which in itself one is far from wishing. That this is the case
in this instance, certainly seems probable, and if it is, the
decision is one which you alone can take for yourself; though if my
own judgment were fully satisfied either way, I would certainly not
hesitate to let you see it.

Ever most affectionately yours,

G.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

House of Commons, May 23, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I left your letter at Lord Bulkeley's house, and afterwards meeting
him, urged him as strongly as I could to give his proxy, which, as
he is applying to me for a cadet-ship for a Welsh lad, I could
press further than I otherwise should. I am sorry to say, however,
that I could not boast much of my success. He talked of the
violence and bigotry of Carnarvonshire, which I do not believe
really weigh with him, as they were more violent and bigoted when
he formerly voted for the Catholics; but I believe the real reason
is some promise which he has made to his wife. I cannot learn where
Lord Torrington is in town, as he has no regular town house, but,
as I am told, takes his letters at the House of Lords; so I have
there left it for him. I spoke to Lord Cassilis about your proxy,
which he will willingly attend to hold if necessary, but had
expected you rather to give his.

The new votes mentioned besides Lord Caledon, Lord Gosport, and
Lord Clare, are Lord Gage, Lord Lucan, Lord Glasgow, Lord Wilton,
Lord Maryborough, Lord Ormond, and I think Lord Suffield (but I am
not sure which way the late Lord voted).

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

Frankland Lewis had a bad fall yesterday in the park, and was a
good deal bruised, but did not, I hope, suffer materially. Lord
Lonsdale had a worse a short time after, and broke two ribs and his
collar-bone.

LORD BULKELEY TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Englefield Green, May 27, 1822.

MY DEAR LORD DUKE,

It is certainly most true that I promised your Grace to vote in
favour of Mr. Canning's motion whenever it came into the House of
Lords, and being conformable to my former votes and opinions, I
should with pleasure have ranged myself under the standard of the
party with which I had so long acted, had not a storm arisen in
Wales on that question, in consequence of Sir Robert Williams's
vote in the House of Commons, which I own to your Grace staggered
my intention very much. It was plainly told me, that if I did not
put water in my wine, all my popularity there would sink to the
ground, and an opposition declared which would put me to great
expense, and a very doubtful issue; and that it depended on my vote
to allay the storm, especially as Sir Robert had raised it. At the
head of these ultra anti-Catholics stand the Bishop of the diocese
(Magendie), and all the parsons to a man, and Mr. Ashton Smith,
Lord Kenyon, and Sir Robert Vaughan, and hundreds who look up to
Lord Eldon and Mr. Peel, and who think that the King is hostile to
the Catholics. I hope, therefore, I may be permitted to absent
myself as I have few days to live, and those few I can pass with
tolerable goodwill in my own _natale solum_, if I do not provoke
their ardent feelings on a point which they have opinions like
those of the University of Oxford. In my general support of
Government under your standard, my Taffies are rejoiced, but upon
the Catholic question they are raving mad.

Hoping the Duchess is well, and your Grace, I am, my dear Lord
Duke, with Lady B----'s joint best remembrances,

Your ever faithful,

W. B.

This is the last communication the writer addressed to his friend, as he died suddenly, at the age of sixty-nine, at Englefield Green, on the 3rd of June.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Dropmore, May 29, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

My uncle Tom writes to Lord Grenville: "My sister just tells me
that she met Canning last night at Burlington House, who told her
that he should write to you to-day to tell you that the Catholic
question was put off in the House of Lords, in consequence of the
death of Lord Grey's mother. I had heard from several people
yesterday that it was not put off; and so much satisfaction was
expressed at the day not being disturbed, that I am persuaded this
new change will be extremely unpopular."

No letter from Canning has arrived; but this probably proceeds from
his directing to Maidenhead, which was the case with the last
letter he wrote to Lord G----.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

What will my worthy colleagues in the Empire of the East do about
this _fracas_ at Canton? Must they not shut up shop? On this head I
have nothing to say to them. I am for sending out a detachment of
capital convicts from the Old Bailey Sessions, since, provided they
are allowed to hang a sufficient number, it is all the Chinese
Government requires.

Lord Eldon had not recovered his good humour, nor reconciled himself to the new servants his sovereign had called to his counsels, and when he could not express his dissatisfaction orally, he rarely failed to do so in writing to his confidential friends--now and then, however, with characteristic caution, denying the authorship of the bad jokes he took pains to circulate.[81] The proceedings of the Legislature he regarded with real alarm whenever their object was to alter what the public voice pronounced capable of amendment, or prune what was judged superfluous. The vote of the House of Commons on the 1st of March, for discontinuing the services of one of the Lords of the Admiralty, and that given on the 2nd of May for getting rid of one of the Postmasters-General, his Lordship called "stripping the Crown naked," and represents the King as suffering from severe illness, occasioned by these attacks, as he considers them, on the Royal prerogative.[82] His acknowledged talent as a lawyer, however, joined to his earnest advocacy of the cause of which he was one of the stoutest champions, ought to suggest allowances for such harmless exaggerations.

[81] Twiss's "Life of Lord Eldon," vol. ii. p. 63.

[82] Ibid., p. 64.

The Catholic question having been put off in the House of Lords till the 21st of June, other questions of a more popular character, including Parliamentary Reform, the Importation of Corn, the amelioration of the Criminal Code, the continuation of the Alien Act, the state of the Currency, and the Tithe system in Ireland, the influence of the Crown, and the suppression of the Slave Trade, came under consideration in this month.

The ball referred to in Mr. Fremantle's note, was given for the benefit of the suffering poor of Ireland at the King's Theatre, London, on the 30th of May, and produced 3500_l._

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

House of Commons, Five o'clock.

MY DEAR DUKE,

You can have no idea of the great impression which has been made on
the public mind by these two last divisions. It has given courage
and unity to our people at the same time, and I trust will enable
us to stem the tide which has been setting against us for the
latter weeks. The great question that still hangs upon us is the
annuity transaction. The South Sea don't take it; the Bank are
negotiating but disinclined; and from what I hear from good
quarters, it will end in its being done by the Government, and
though not actually from the Sinking Fund, still with the means of
applying the Sinking Fund in case of failure. The whole project is
of Vansittart, and therefore to be feared, but I hope ultimately we
shall get over it, and satisfy the country gentlemen by taking off
1,500,000_l._ or 1,600,000_l._ of taxes.

There is nothing material more to say. There has been a fine
tripotage among the higher females about this Irish ball. The
Duchess of Richmond was first applied to to be at the head, and the
Duke of York was patron. All the present ladies were of her list,
and had agreed to be patronesses, when lo and behold! Lady
Conyngham, not having been sent to by the Duchess of Richmond, took
offence, and set up a new list, placing the King at the head, whom
she commanded to go, and all these ladies turned tack directly,
abandoned the Duchess, and are now of the new Government--a pretty
semblance of what might occur in the male political tribe.

Ever most faithfully yours,

W. H. F.

The state of Ireland--between famine and revolution--became every day more alarming, and the influence of the Marquis Wellesley for good, appeared more problematical. At this time the Ministers were desirous that the King should pay a visit to another portion of his dominions, where a welcome awaited him not less genuine than that which had given so great a zest to his visit to Ireland; but, as will presently be seen, they had some difficulty in getting his Majesty to enter into their views.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

House of Commons' Committee Room, Thursday morning.

MY DEAR B----,

I explained to Sir Edward East the other day, how the case stood
with respect to his claim to be admitted to the Privy Council.
There have been two instances which have occurred of his
predecessors being so appointed. Upon Sir John Anstruther's return
during Lord Grenville's administration, you must, I am sure,
remember that the greatest inconvenience had arisen from the
secession of Sir William Grant, and I believe Sir William Scott,
from the Privy Council, and that there were no lawyers to attend
the hearing of appeals. To supply this want, and with no reference
whatever to his having been Chief Justice of Calcutta, Anstruther
was sworn in. Sir H. Russell returned in 1813, and three years
afterwards was made a Privy Councillor for the same purpose. It
therefore seems to me, that whether it be or be not thought
desirable that East should hereafter receive the same mark of
favour, when legal members may be wanted at that Board, it is at
all events objectionable to give it at the present moment, which
would establish an absolute _right_ for all future Chief Justices
against whom there had been no particular charge, to claim it
immediately on their return. With this explanation he appeared
perfectly satisfied, and desired that it might be understood to be
his wish that it should not be pressed if there was any objection
to it.

I send you the Irish Constables' Bill, the alterations in which
have, I believe, satisfied almost all the Irishmen.

Newport went out of town yesterday. I do not myself believe in the
existence of any intrigue for keeping Canning in this country. If I
knew of any, I should be much disposed to join in it _openly_.
Why Westmoreland should not make room for Lord Melville, who might
continue to hold the sceptre of Scotland, and so leave the
Admiralty to Canning, I cannot conceive. I think as ill of the
latter as the K---- or you can, but it seems to me to be so much
his interest to do his best, and that the gulf between him and the
Reformers is so impassable, that it would be far better to admit
him, and to take the benefit of service in the House of Commons,
which no other man can render.

Having been bored till five this morning in the House, I can write
no more. Richard Wellesley, who is upon the Committee, tells me
that his accounts of Lord Wellesley are very good, and that he is
_quite well_.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Whitehall, July 5, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

You will perhaps be surprised at not having heard from me
respecting the late arrests in Ireland, but the truth is, that his
Excellency is too discreet to communicate by his despatches more
intelligence than appears in the Dublin newspapers, except that the
evidence against these persons is so strong, that he is confident
of convicting several of them. In due time he promises to send us
the examinations which have been taken, and on which the men were
apprehended. This, I suppose, will not be till after he has tried
them.

We get on, as you will see, at a snail's pace; still I flatter
myself I see many symptoms of the session drawing to a conclusion.
After next week, we shall have no Irish members left, and most of
the English will also have left town.

The King now again proposes going to Scotland. The visits are to be
to the Duke of Athol, Duke of Montrose, Lord Mansfield, and Lord
Hopetoun; perhaps Lord Breadalbane, but not to Gordon Castle or
Inverary--the first on account of distance, the latter of the
Duke's absence.

He has been extremely reasonable in agreeing to the postponement of
a Bill enabling him to make a will, and to the alteration of one
for regulating the Duchy of Cornwall, though he had got somewhat
like a promise before Christmas that they should be passed in this
session.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES W. WYNN TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

July 8, 1822.

MY DEAR B----,

I had an audience to-day on some business of no importance, but was
very graciously received. He talked to me some time about Canning,
whom he abused extremely for falsehood and treachery, and expressed
his opinion that he was now engaged in some intrigue or another.

The expectation of the Chancellor's retiring seems to be very
general, in consequence of the undisguised irritation which he has
expressed on the decision of the Marriage Bill. There certainly
never has been so strong an instance of revolt among those who for
so many years were the humblest of slaves.

Proxies, as you will see, were not called for. Yours was entered to
Lord Wemyss, who expressed himself much flattered at holding it. I
should have given it to Lord Cassilis, but that he was doubtful as
to his power of attending.

Ever affectionately yours,

C. W. W.

THE RIGHT HON. THOMAS GRENVILLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Cleveland Square, July 9, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

The match that has been so long pending, after a very long
attachment, between the Duke of M----'s daughter and Mr. G----, is
declared off, as is said, by the lady, in consequence of the
insanity _found now_ to prevail in the bridegroom's family. But as
all the world has long known that G----'s father shot himself, and
his uncle (W----) cut his throat, it seems quite incomprehensible
that this should have escaped the lady's observation till now.

A strange report was circulated of the eldest son of Lord Cassilis
(Lord Kennedy) having shot at a boy in a tree and killed him. There
was no boy, and no tree, and no shooting, and no possible account
how such an entire fiction could have been circulated.

I am going to see our bronze Achilles[83] mount this morning upon
his pedestal in the park.

Kind love to your dear wife, and God bless you!

Yours affectionately,

T. G.

[83] The well known figure in Hyde Park, erected in honour of the
Duke of Wellington.

THE RIGHT HON. W. H. FREMANTLE TO THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM.

Stanhope Street, July 11, 1822.

MY DEAR DUKE,

We have had a very severe fagging for the last ten days, but I
think we have made great progress, and I have no doubt now that the
House of Commons will be up at the end of this month. The King
certainly does not go to Scotland, though the decision has been
fluctuating for some time past. His Ministers wished him to go, and
he wished not, and has been putting up his doctors to support him
by ordering them to pronounce that he would suffer from the
journey, fatigue, &c. I hear that, in consequence of all this, he
is not quite in such good humour with them as he was. Lord Warwick,
you see, has got the Lieutenancy of Warwickshire, which has
offended Lord Hertford. Lord Liverpool has had a serious attack of
inflammation in the sinew of his thigh (his old complaint); he was
extremely bad for two days, but is now nearly recovered. There
never was anything so strange and absurd as Lord W----'s match; it
was evidently planned and forced by the S----s. After he was gone
he wrote three letters, which have been seen by the person who told
me--one to his mother, the Duchess of B----, saying how sorry he
was to have offended her by this marriage, but he was sure she
would forgive him if she could witness the happiness he then
enjoyed; the second to Lord Fitzroy Somerset, saying he was the
most miserable man breathing, that he had been entrapped to marry,
and he should never feel a moment's happiness again; the third to
Lord Alvanley, saying that he had been obliged to marry; that he
begged he would let him know what was said upon it, particularly by
the girls (he had been making love to Lady Caroline S----). Hoped
they would not quiz him, for he was unhappy enough.

Can you fancy such folly and such profligacy? The fact is, I really
believe he has got ... or that she made him believe it, and
therefore compelled him to marry her. There is nothing but this
sort of gossip stirring in town. The debates are most tedious, and
the Houses very thin. I believe the Opposition as weary of it as we
are. Phillimore will have some plague with his Marriage Bill, but I
have no doubt will carry it, though the Chancellor is outrageous,
making a prodigious noise about it, and sets up the
Attorney-General to oppose it.

W. H. FREMANTLE.

The Lord Chancellor not only continued to set his face strongly against the Grenville portion of the Government; but there exists evidence that while doing so he began to look favourably upon Opposition. He accepted an invitation to dine at Holland House, and there met, as he acknowledges, Lords Holland, Grey, Lauderdale, and "several of the Opposition."[84] A step like this from such a man, is extremely suggestive, and rumours of sweeping changes in the Administration followed, as a matter of course.

[84] See his letter to Lady Bankes, Twiss, vol. ii. p. 71.

CHAPTER IX.

[1822.]

SIR WILLIAM KNIGHTON APPOINTED KEEPER OF THE KING'S PRIVY PURSE. HIS SENSE OF DUTY SOMETIMES OPPOSED TO THE KING'S INSTRUCTIONS. HIS IMPORTANT SERVICES IN LESSENING THE ROYAL EXPENDITURE. ARRESTS IN IRELAND. CANNING AND PEEL. LAMENTABLE DEATH OF THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY. ESTIMATE OF THIS DISTINGUISHED STATESMAN. LETTER FROM THE KING ON THE SUBJECT. THE ROYAL VISIT TO SCOTLAND. SIR WALTER SCOTT'S RELIC. PROSPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. CANNING. HIS SPEECH AT LIVERPOOL. HE SUCCEEDS THE MARQUIS OF LONDONDERRY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.