The Creevey Papers
Thomas Creevey to Elizabeth Ord, 27 January 1838
“Jermyn St., 27th.
“. . . I have really been so disturbed in my mind
by this Canada Bill that I could not write till its fate was decided. I am at a
loss for words to express my contempt for the Government in the endless
bungling they have made on this occasion. Never was there such a piece of luck
for them as the Canada rebellion, its speedy reduction, and, above all, the
opportunity it afforded of considering past errors and making a wise and just
arrangement for the future. All mankind was with them upon this subject; but
some maniac or demon in their counsels would mar all these advantages by the
manner or form of their Bill of Redress. I said from the first that every word
uttered by Peel was gospel, and that nothing was left for the Government but to go down
on their marrowbones and to withdraw the gratuitous, useless and
unconstitutional parts of their own Bill. To think, too, of their volunteering
Glenelg’s instructions to
Durham. . . . Well, but now let me have
done with
* See vol. ii. p. 253. † Created Lord
Seaton in 1839. Was Governor-General of Canada. |
![]()
![]()
| 1837-38.] | WHERE SHALL I GO NEXT? | 335 |
![]()
this disgusting hash, and
where shall I go next? Why, to Earl Durham himself, I
think, with whom I dined at the Duke of
Norfolk’s on Tuesday, and no one could be more affable and
conciliatory than our Canada chief. He had seen the Queen that morning, and I made him describe the meeting. After
being presented by Glenelg, the Queen made a sign to the
latter to withdraw, and then some conversation took place between the Queen and
her Ambassador, in which the latter [Durham] expressed his
earnest hopes that he might enjoy her Majesty’s permission to extend her
clemency in any degree towards her revolted Canadian subjects. This she
accorded in the fullest and most gracious manner. Durham
was full of her praises—of her sense and excellent manners, but he
admitted to me that neither on that occasion nor any other did she utter a word
to him on what we call politics.
“A propos to our little Vic—we are all enchanted with her for her
munificence to the Fitzclarences. Besides their pensions
out of the public pension list, they had nearly £10,000 a year given them by
their father* out of his privy purse, every
farthing of which the Queen continues out of her privy purse, with quantities
of other such things. For an instance within my own knowledge—Sir John Lade, a very rich man, and once the
greatest crony of George the 4th when Prince
of Wales, was reduced to beggary at last by having kept such good company; so
much so, that Lord Anglesey, who had lived
with both, went to our Prinney† and actually made
him give Lade £500 a year out of his privy purse. When brother
William came to the throne, he continued £300 a year
to Lade out of his privy purse; but upon the accession of
Vic it was supposed there would be an end of it
altogether. As poor Lade was a brother whip and crony of
Sefton, I saw letters from him
imploring Sefton’s interest with Melbourne for a continuance of a portion of this
pension, however small; but Melbourne in reply, however
friendly he might be, could hold out no prospect of relief for him. Think,
therefore, of me being the first to tell Sefton last night
![]()
![]()
| 336 | THE CREEVEY PAPERS | [Ch XIV. |
![]()
what Melbourne told me in the course
of the day. The Queen’s pleasure had been taken as to the further
reduction or extinction of this charge upon the privy purse, when she asked if
Sir John Lade was not above 80 years of age, and being
answered in the affirmative, she said she would neither have the pension
enquired into nor reduced, but continued on her own privy purse. . . . I wish
that conceited puppy Howick* had resigned
and absconded from the Cabinet when he announced his intention to Ellice at Holkham to do so. It is quite clear
that all this mischief has arisen from his obstinacy and the foolish attempt of
his colleagues to satisfy or pacify him; and the latter object seems to have
been accomplished at the expense and to the eternal disgrace, I fear, of his
betters.”
Edward Ellice (1783-1863)
British merchant with the Hudson's Bay Company and Whig MP for Coventry (1818-26,
1830-63); he was a friend of Sir Francis Burdett and John Cam Hobhouse.
Charles Grant, baron Glenelg (1778-1866)
Educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and Lincoln's Inn, he was a member of the
Speculative Society, MP, Irish chief secretary (1818), and colonial secretary (1835),
created Baron Glenelg in 1835.
Henry George Grey, third earl Grey (1802-1894)
The son of the second earl; he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge and was a Whig
MP (1826-45) when he succeeded his father. He was secretary for the colonies
(1846-52).
Bernard Edward Howard, twelfth duke of Norfolk (1765-1842)
Educated at the English College at Douai, in 1815 he succeeded his third cousin, Charles
Howard, eleventh duke (d. 1815), and took his seat in Parliament after passage of the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill of 1829.
Sir John Lade, second baronet (1759-1838)
The son of the first baronet (d. 1759) and nephew of Henry Thrale, he was a gambler,
sportsman, and friend of the Prince of Wales whose wife Letitia had been a mistress of the
Duke of York.
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.
Henry William Paget, first marquess of Anglesey (1768-1854)
Originally Bayly, educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford; he was MP
(1790-1810), commander of cavalry under Sir John Moore, lost a leg at Waterloo, and raised
to the peerage 1815; he was lord-lieutenant of Ireland (1828-29, 1830-33).
