The Creevey Papers
Thomas Creevey to Elizabeth Ord, 20 October 1820
“House of Lords, Oct. 20, 1 o’clock.
“. . . Having said that Brougham had made up his mind not to examine
Oldi and Mariette, let me say
why; so that, if you keep my account of this trial, posterity may know what the
Queen’s counsel really thought of his client—a very rare thing to
know and in this case, quite authentic. Denman, Lushington,
Tindal and Wilde are all decidedly for calling both
Oldi and Mariette;
Brougham has no doubt of the fidelity of these
witnesses, and of their perfect belief in the Queen’s innocence; but he is equally sure that the
villainy of these judges—the Lords—would inflict a persecution of
two days’ examination upon each of these witnesses, and, from the
experience of their ![]()
| 1819-20.] | BROUGHAM’S TACTICS. | 329 |
![]()
monstrous injustice in raising such diabolical inferences from admissions so
natural and innocent as those of so capital a witness as
Howman was, or from the rambling imbecility of
Flynn, he dare not trust these
foreign women to the same ordeal. All this I had from
Brougham last night. He told me, too, as he has done
before, that, altho’ he was in possession of many circumstances
unfavorable in appearance to the Queen, which were not known to me, he did
nevertheless believe her to be compleatly innocent—in direct opposition
to his former sentiments; and that, furthermore, should this Bill ever come to
the House of Commons, he will then, being no longer in the character of her
counsel, take an opportunity of declaring, upon his honor as a gentleman, his
sincere belief in her innocence.*
“I had a very agreeable day at the Derbys yesterday, as indeed it always is
there—the Fortescues, Darnleys, Kings and Bennet. To-day
I dine at Sefton’s with Brougham. . . . Holland House is the only place I
have heard of as being in a state of rage at my attack on Cole.† . . . A division has just taken
place, when Liverpool and our people beat
the Chancellor‡ and his by 122 to 79;
but Grey, with his usual candour, has
carried an amendment to Petty’s§
motion, that in my belief, and with such a villain as Powell to deal with, will make the motion
perfectly nugatory. Grey’s conduct throughout this
business has been most injurious to the Queen, her counsel
and her cause.”
Henry Grey Bennet (1777-1836)
The son of Charles Bennet, fourth earl of Tankerville; educated at Eton and Peterhouse,
Cambridge, he was a Whig MP for MP for Shrewsbury (1806-07, 1811-26) and a legal
reformer.
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).
Queen Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1768-1821)
Married the Prince of Wales in 1795 and separated in 1796; her husband instituted
unsuccessful divorce proceedings in 1820 when she refused to surrender her rights as
queen.
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.”
John Turner Flynn (1790 c.-1840 fl.)
Naval officer who was captain of Queen Caroline's yacht; he was a witness in her trials
in 1820, and in 1840 was convicted of forgery and transported for life.
Hugh Fortescue, first earl Fortescue (1753-1841)
The son of Matthew Fortescue, second Baron Fortescue; he married Hester Grenville, and
was MP for Beaumaris (1784-85) before being created Earl Fortescue in 1789.
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).
Peter King, seventh baron King (1775-1833)
Whig politician, son of the sixth baron; he was educated at Harrow and Trinity College,
Cambridge before succeeding to the title in 1793. His son William married Ada Byron.
Stephen Lushington (1782-1873)
Barrister, judge, and Whig MP; educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford, he advised
Lady Byron on a separation from Lord Byron in 1816.
William Edward Powell (1788-1854)
The son of Thomas Powell of Nanteos; he was educated at Westminster School and was
Conservative MP for Cardiganshire (1816-54).
John Scott, first earl of Eldon (1751-1838)
Lord chancellor (1801-27); he was legal counsel to the Prince of Wales and an active
opponent of the Reform Bill.
Edward Smith Stanley, twelfth earl of Derby (1752-1834)
Grandson of the eleventh earl (d. 1776); educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge,
he was a Whig MP for Lancashire, a friend of Charles James Fox, nephew of John Burgoyne,
and a committed sportsman.
Henry Stewart, duke of Albany (1546-1567)
The second consort of Mary Queen of Scots and father of James VI and I; his murderers
have never been discovered.
George Tierney (1761-1830)
Whig MP and opposition leader whose political pragmatism made him suspect in the eyes of
his party; he fought a bloodless duel with Pitt in 1798. He is the “Friend of Humanity” in
Canning and Frere's “The Needy Knife-Grinder.”
Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal (1776-1846)
Educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and Lincoln's Inn, he was a Tory MP for Wigtown
(1824-26) and Harwich (1826-27); as a judge he presided over the trial of Lord Melbourne
for criminal conversation.
Thomas Wilde, first baron Truro (1782-1855)
English judge who made his reputation defending Queen Caroline; he was serjeant-at-law
(1824), Whig MP for Newark-on-Trent (1831-32), and lord chancellor (1850-52).
