Samuel Rogers and his Contemporaries
Samuel Rogers to Richard Sharp, 4 December 1834
‘Holland House: 4th Dec., 1834.
‘My dear Friend,—The long and the short I believe
to be this: The K. is by all parties
thought to be very honest but very nervous. Now, there are only two men in whom
he has much confidence. To them he looks up—in them only does he think
there is safety; and having lost one, he resolved on the first occasion to call
in the other, though well satisfied with Melbourne. If Lord G[rey]
had remained in office, he would never, they say, have had recourse to the
Duke.
‘So the Whig ministers may thank themselves for having
taken Lord G. too readily at his word. The
wish of his heart was to continue another year and to carry the two Church
reforms, which he was confident he could have done.
‘The first half of my story I believe, the last half I
know to be true.
‘If our friends Lord
H[olland] and Lord
L[ansdowne] had gone out with Lord
G., which they ought to have done, H. would have brought
Lord G. back, and we should now have been in office,
or it would have brought in the Tories at once—a sad event, for they
would then
108 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
have had more time for entrenching themselves
before another session, and for working mischief abroad.
‘“Would you like a little more of the graphic?
Six Ministers were assembled at dinner at H[olland] H[ouse], on the Friday
night (the night of Lord M.’s return
from Brighton), and dispersed, thinking themselves still in office. On that
night, at half-past seven o’clock, Lord
Palmerston called at the Treasury, and was shown in to
Lord M., who had just alighted, and was sitting in his
travelling cap, by two candles, in a large room, his room of business.
“What news?” said P. “What will surprise you,” said M.,
and, saying no more, he put into his hand a paper, containing the result of
what had passed.
‘What had passed was nothing like what it is said to
be. It was very simple. The K. did not tell
the Q. till the next day, when she said,
“Ah! England will rejoice in it;” to which he answered, “That
is as it may be, Madam.” (A favourite phrase with him.) Lord G. at Howick is astounded—he thinks the
measure not only unconstitutional, but illegal—for the D., being dictator, might run away with all the
money. Lord M. writes from Melbourne very
naturally. “I was never so happy, but I suppose I shall soon be d—d
tired for want of something to do, as all are who leave office.”
‘And now a word or two about Brougham. His vagaries in Scotland, for I followed in his wake,
would fill a volume. His letter to Lord
Lyndhurst and the answer I have seen. If you had any suspicions
with regard to the moon before, what do you think now? Scarlett has also another competitor in Wetherall, for W. could not be Irish
Chancellor and Scarlett could. I
| LORD BROUGHAM AND THE KING | 109 |
earnestly wish that S. may have what he
wants, and I am told he is sure of it—Denman tells me so. In that case Wll. must have the Duchy of
L[ancaster], for he neither could nor would go to Ireland.
‘To return to the K. He has long taken a great dislike to B., and his conduct lately has settled it. His
antics and his taking the great seal across the Border without leave, brought
on the crisis. He has worn him out, too, with correspondence, having assailed
him with reams of paper, writing through Sir H.
Taylor. He thinks he has great admissions in the K.’s
answers through the same channel, but forgets that the K., also, has his. His,
I am told by those who have seen them, are beyond anything. But why, you will
say, did the K. write (or rather dictate)? He thought he must answer his
Chancellor. All now is over, however, and I believe all are heartily sick of
him. He wrote a second letter to Lord L. from Calais, still more urgent, and he
has written a third retracting all. He has taken, I hear, his seat in the
Institute.
‘I am delighted to think that you are so well off as to
society. The weather here is delightful. What then must it be with you!
Remember me most kindly to the ladies.
‘Ever yours,
‘S. R.
‘B. has taken
his new secretary with him to Paris—a dull young man, able only to
transcribe; his fellow-traveller in Scotland, Edmonds.
‘Pray write to me, without any thought or scruple
110 | ROGERS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES | |
as to postage. The utmost cannot amount to the
price of one opera. But having bored you with this long epistle, I shall
spare you in future. My lady removes to Burlington Street to-morrow.
‘And now to conclude with what I ought to have
begun with—your new
volume—which I first saw in Jeffrey’s hand—notice-copy. I cannot say how
much I like the nine new articles, though I wish you had given a little
more of a Continental tour, particularly in Switzerland; but your additions
are invaluable.
‘Hallam is
in town, and Sydney [Smith], and
Whishaw. When you like you shall
meet them at breakfast. H. is but a step, you know.
‘Lord M.
communicated the news only to three persons over night—the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor. Next morning it was in the
“Times,” and
“Chronicle.”
Who sent it? The two first say, we did not. The mischievous article was
sent by him, I suppose, as a poisonous present to “The Times,” “the Queen has done it all.” These things must destroy all
confidence. Allen fights for him
against all the world.’
Queen Adelaide (1792-1849)
The daughter of George Frederick Charles, duke of Saxe-Meiningen and consort of William
IV, whom she married in 1818.
John Allen (1771-1843)
Scottish physician and intimate of Lord Holland; he contributed to the
Edinburgh Review and
Encyclopedia Britannica and published
Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in
England (1830). He was the avowed atheist of the Holland House set.
Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868)
Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the
Edinburgh
Review in which he chastised Byron's
Hours of Idleness; he
defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University
(1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).
John Singleton Copley, baron Lyndhurst (1772-1863)
The son of the American painter; he did legal work for John Murray before succeeding Lord
Eldon as lord chancellor (1827-30, 1834-35, 1841-46); a skilled lawyer, he was also a
political chameleon.
Thomas Denman, first baron Denman (1779-1854)
English barrister and writer for the
Monthly Review; he was MP,
solicitor-general to Queen Caroline (1820), attorney-general (1820), lord chief justice
(1832-1850). Sydney Smith commented, “Denman everybody likes.”
Henry Richard Fox, third baron Holland (1773-1840)
Whig politician and literary patron; Holland House was for many years the meeting place
for reform-minded politicians and writers. He also published translations from the Spanish
and Italian;
Memoirs of the Whig Party was published in 1852.
Charles Grey, second earl Grey (1764-1845)
Whig statesman and lover of the Duchess of Devonshire; the second son of the first earl
(d. 1807), he was prime minister (1831-34).
Henry Hallam (1777-1859)
English historian and contributor to the
Edinburgh Review, author
of
Introduction to the Literature of Europe, 4 vols (1837-39) and
other works. He was the father of Tennyson's Arthur Hallam.
Francis Jeffrey, Lord Jeffrey (1773-1850)
Scottish barrister, Whig MP, and co-founder and editor of the
Edinburgh
Review (1802-29). As a reviewer he was the implacable foe of the Lake School of
poetry.
William Lamb, second viscount Melbourne (1779-1848)
English statesman, the son of Lady Melbourne (possibly by the third earl of Egremont) and
husband of Lady Caroline Lamb; he was a Whig MP, prime minister (1834-41), and counsellor
to Queen Victoria.
James Scarlett, first baron Abinger (1769-1844)
English barrister and politician educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner
Temple; he was a Whig MP (1819-34) who served as attorney-general in the Canning and
Wellington ministries.
Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
Clergyman, wit, and one of the original projectors of the
Edinburgh
Review; afterwards lecturer in London and one of the Holland House
denizens.
Sir Herbert Taylor (1775-1839)
He was aide-de-camp and private secretary to the duke of York, afterwards to George III
and William IV; he was MP for Windsor (1820-23) and published
Memoirs of
the Last Illness and Decease of HRH the Duke of York (1827).
Henry John Temple, third viscount Palmerston (1784-1865)
After education at Harrow and Edinburgh University he was MP for Newport (1807-11) and
Cambridge University (1811-31), foreign minister (1830-41), and prime minister (1855-58,
1859-65).
Sir Charles Wetherell (1770-1846)
Educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, he was Tory MP (1812-32) violently opposed to
reform and Catholic emancipation; he was attorney-general (1826, 1828).
John Whishaw (1764 c.-1840)
Barrister, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge; he was Secretary to the African
Association and biographer of Mungo Park. His correspondence was published as
The “Pope” of Holland House in 1906.
Morning Chronicle. (1769-1862). James Perry was proprietor of this London daily newspaper from 1789-1821; among its many
notable poetical contributors were Coleridge, Southey, Lamb, Rogers, and Campbell.
The Times. (1785-). Founded by John Walter, The Times was edited by Thomas Barnes from 1817 to 1841. In the
romantic era it published much less literary material than its rival dailies, the
Morning Chronicle and the
Morning
Post.