LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Byron
Documents Biography Criticism
The Creevey Papers
Thomas Creevey to Elizabeth Ord, 6 November 1820
INTRODUCTION & INDEXES
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
GO TO PAGE NUMBER:
Introduction
Vol. I. Contents
Ch. I: 1793-1804
Ch. II: 1805
Ch. III: 1805
Ch. IV: 1806-08
Ch. V: 1809
Ch. VI: 1810
Ch. VII: 1811
Ch. VIII: 1812
Ch. IX: 1813-14
Ch X: 1814-15
Ch XI: 1815-16
Ch XII: 1817-18
Ch XIII: 1819-20
Vol. II. Contents
Ch I: 1821
Ch. II: 1822
Ch. III: 1823-24
Ch. IV: 1825-26
Ch. V: 1827
Ch. VI: 1827-28
Ch. VII: 1828
Ch. VIII: 1829
Ch. IX: 1830-31
Ch. X: 1832-33
Ch. XI: 1833
Ch. XII: 1834
Ch XIII: 1835-36
Ch XIV: 1837-38
Index
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
 
“House of Lords, 6th Nov., 2 o’clock.

“. . . Lord Lansdowne finished his speech in the very first rate style . . . since then the speakers against the Bill have been the Duke of Somerset, Lords Enniskillen, Howard of Effingham, de Clifford, Grantham, Stafford and Calthorpe. The speakers for the Bill have been the Dukes of Athol and Northumberland, and Lord Grenville is now speaking on the same side; but, thank God, he comes too late. . . . Old Stafford uttered an opinion that is worth ten votes at least in the H. of Commons. He made no doubt of the Bill being lost in the H. of Commons, and that then there was an end of the Constitution. It never can come to the H. of Commons, by God! That little chap de Clifford is an agreeable surprise. He is such a cursed Queen-hater that we always calculated upon his being for the Bill. We had a most agreeable dinner yesterday at Brooks’s—Fitzwilliam, Grey, Cowper, Norfolk, Jersey, Thanet, Albemarle—and, in short, 17 of us. Grey was all

* The Hon. James Abercromby, M.P.

1819-20.]THE DIVISION.337
good humour and gentleness, and I had great pleasure in petting him—abusing him at the same time for all his palaver with Liverpool and Eldon, particularly the latter. . . . If you could see little Barny* with me you would say it was almost too much. Every day at the rising of the House he comes regularly to ask me to let him walk up with me, and so we do. At other times he is equally in pursuit of me. He wants me very much to let him take me a little tour with him to shew me Arundel, &c., &c. He wants me, too, to dine with him at Dowr. ‘July’s’ to-day, but I shall do no such thing. I dine at Ferguson’s.

“Brooks’s, 5 o’clock.

“All is over—that is with the 2nd reading—123 for the Bill and 95 against it—leaving a majority for the Bill of 28 only. This is fatal. Eleven Bishops voted for it, and the Archbishop of York† alone against it. I am delighted the young Duke of Richmond‡ voted against it. The other curious persons on the same side were Lords Bath, Mansfield, Bagot, Plymouth, Amherst, Delawar, Dartmouth, Enniskillen, Egremont, Audley, &c., &c. . . .”