against him, he never meant to open his lips upon it again. He is not usually so moderate, there had been only one great division, the majority only ninety, and previous to our meeting the storm ran high against all those who would not vote for diminishing the Civil List. It is easy to see the reason of all this; they are coquetting with the King, and afraid to shut the door by offending him. They use

*

*

as their

go-between, and, knowing that Ld. Liverpool is disliked by the King, are quiescent in the hope that their turn is coming.

A

May 27th, 1820.-Dined with Mr. Alexander. pleasant party and entertainment. Present, the D. of Montrose, Ld. Graham, and Lady Caroline, Ld. * * Ld. and Lady Caledon, the Bishop of Down (A.'s brother), his wife, a mild Irish woman, Sir H. Montgomery, Charles Grant (Secretary for Ireland), Irving Dashwood, and his handsome sister; the conversation easy, jocose, and social, the Duke particularly so. A little politics, high praises of Ld. Liverpool's and Ld. Lansdowne's speeches last night, and the whole debate as one of statesmen, men of principle and moderation, seeking truth, just as it should be. We soon, however, talked of Ireland, Edgeworth's life by himself and daughter, just published; afterwards of Scott and Rob Roy, particularly interesting to a Montrose. The women joined and were pleasant, and we staid late.

Summoned to a meeting at Ld. Castlereagh's, on the Queen's business; after which Ld. Cranbourn took me aside and said he had a message for me from

his sister, Lady Georgiana Wellesley, who was just arrived from Madrid. It regarded my son (attached to that embassy), and whom they had had the kindness to take into the house with them. The message was of the most flattering kind, regarding his abilities, temper, conduct, and popularity, and rejoiced my very heart. It concluded with a kind message from Sir Henry, that he was glad to have the son of an old friend with him. Some days before this I met Giles (of Hertfordshire, formerly member for St. Alban's), who brought me the same sort of message from Lady Georgiana, upon the strength of all which I thought it right to wait upon her, and was most graciously received. She spoke of my son before Ld. Sefton, who was there, in the pleasantest manner, and said both she and Sir Henry thought him all I could wish. If ever he sees this he may suppose my pleasure.

July 6th, 1820.-Rode with the Duke in the Park. He entered upon the conduct of the Guards, and said the hurrahs from the party on Saturday proceeded from a few recruits just off drill, who had never seen the Queen, and joined the mob merely to get a sight of her. They then, as was not unnatural, joined in the cry. He seemed to mean that the old soldiers would not have done it However, said he, I do not disguise that in the whole constitution of Guard discipline there is something awkward.

Met Ld. *

coming out of the House of Lds. and we walked home through the Park together.

Sebright joined us; none of us spared the Queen, if, indeed, all were not abusive, they were more so than myself; to such is Majesty reduced. Sebright said he blamed us for the previous conduct towards her, but there was now nothing to do but proceed. She was * ** and wanted to raise a rebellion, and those who made such speeches and motions in the House (alluding to Creevy, Bennet and Fergusson) would play into her hands. He would never support them. Ld. *** (whom I always look upon as a most honest man) said it was rather hard upon him to have to present her petitions, but he could not refuse, being so intimate with Brougham. But they were brought to him at a minute's notice, and he knew nothing about, consequently could not support, them. In the present instance, he thought she was taken in, in pressing for trial within four and twenty hours. She thought we would not take her at her word, and might bully as she had done before; that she was a bold, dangerous, impudent woman, as full of revenge as careless of crime, and that if we did not take care might play the part of Catherine the second, who, by means of the Guards, murdered her husband and usurped the throne. I was struck with this coincidence between him and myself. He went on to say he hoped the coronation would be put off, for he feared the mob would bring down the Queen during the ceremony; that she would certainly come and a tumult would ensue, in which probably the Guards would not act. He said, Don't be too sure of the Guards; and then

talked of what Tyrwhitt had said of them before Carlton House. He added that his brother, Col.

*(of the Guards), had written him word from Brighton, that the serjeants of the 51st had given a dinner to celebrate the anniversary of Waterloo, and had invited a serjeant of the Guards, who, after the King's health had been drunk, proposed the Queen, with three times three, upon which the serjeants of the 51st turned him out of the room; that he returned with a mob and assailed the 51st and beat them out of the house in his turn. This last, he said, was not told him by his brother, but all looked ill. Alluding to the report of the Q.'s defence as to Bergami, he thought it a hoax. We then turned upon the character of the H. of Lds. in contrast with the Commons. He said it was totally different, there was a want of impetus, and from attention to the decencies and civilities of debate there could be no play for such men as Creevy and Bennet. Nobody could bite as in the Commons, and that it was dull. It is certainly true nobody can call rogue and blackguard in terms there as with us. He observed, however, that the gentlemen of dignity in their ribbons were the most manoeuvring of the set. Talking of Ld. Liverpool, he said he was very able, and the honestest man that could be dealt with. You may always trust him, he stated, and though he may be going to answer you after a speech, you may go out and leave your words in his hands and he will never misrepresent you; he owned he had quite got the better of Ld. Grey.

Oct. 14th, 1820. - Dined with the Speaker en famille. We had more murders and ghost stories than politics. He thought Ministers in a bad way, that the popular clamour prevailed, and that the upper orders were panic struck. Had no doubt of the Queen's guilt, and that it was morally proved. He was much amused with an account he had had of the conversation of two women in the Park, on the Wednesday before, when they seemed to have been up with the Address to the Queen. Lord! said one to the other, what do you think? Lord! I don't know! Why only think of Mrs. Simmons, she went up without a wail (veil). Why you don't say so! why if I had been Mrs. Simmons, if I had put a tablecloth round my head, I would have gone up with a wail! This is a pretty fair specimen of the accomplishments of the addressers.

Oct. 15th, 1820.- Called upon Ld. Lonsdale. He was vehement as to the proved guilt of the Queen, and thought the Bill must pass the Lds.

Oct. 16th. Walked with Sir *

He

said he had no doubt that the Queen was guilty, but would never vote for the Bill, as unconstitutional. At the same time ready to admit that Ministers had proved such a case as perfectly justified them in bringing it forward. From so determined an opposition man I thought this a great deal, but asked if he would say this on his legs? That, he said, was a different thing; but added, that some of the most violent friends of