“Vous vous trompez, mon
cher, when you say Lord
Grey ever voted for Canning in preference to Whitbread. At the period to which you refer, he was the only
one who voted for Whitbread against
Canning, and he did so under strong circumstances as
affecting Whitbread. You are aware of the half kind of
hostility that existed between Whitbread and
Grey from the time of the latter taking office in
1806, and one act in particular of Whitbread’s made
Grey furious. When Prinney became Regent, the Whigs and
Grenvilles thought the game was all their own again,
and in casting the parts for the new administration,
Whitbread was to be Secy. of State for the Colonies;
but, before he wd. touch it, he made it a sine qua non that Ld. Grenville, as First Lord, should not be
Auditor likewise—a proposition, I say, that made
Grey furious, as an injustice to
Grenville, and a reflection upon their former
Government; but as nothing could shake Whitbread, the
proposition was laid before Grenville, who, greatly to his
honor, wrote a letter in which, tho’ he arraigned very freely what he
thought the injustice of the demand, still he thought so highly of
Whitbread’s services, that he struck rather than
not have them. Well, all this, as you know, ended in smoke; but shortly after
(upon Perceval’s death, I believe)
when the game was again in view, the question arose whether
Canning or Whitbread was to be
adopted. Grey voted for Whitbread, in
spite of all the provocation he had given him, upon the express ground of
having confidence in his character, which he had not in
Canning’s. You are right, therefore, when you
say that Grey’s objection to
Canning is personal, tho’ not entirely so. If
such personal objection was well
| 1827.] | CREEVEY’S OBJECTIONS. | 119 |
“What you say of coalitions generally, is true—they are all bad, and all popular principles are sure to be sacrificed in such a mess. When Brougham wrote and asked me what I thought of this concern, I replied that I had an instinctive horror of the very name of a coalition; and yet, with all the sins of the last one in 1806, it surely is not to be compared in its design and formation with this one. Fox and Grenville had been acting openly together in opposition. When Pitt got the Govt. in 1804, he could not induce Grenville to accept office and leave Fox. When Pitt died, and old Nobbs* sent for Grenville to make the Govt., the latter would not listen to any prejudice against Fox, but made the Crown divide the Govt. between them. Now surely to see Whigs thrusting themselves tail foremost into Canning’s pay as subalterns, is, at least, a very low-lived concern as compared with the last coalition. . . . I say both upon public and personal grounds, I never would identify myself with Canning. . . . I should like no better fun than backing the renegado Canning every night against the Tory Highflyers, but as to trusting myself in the same boat with him, and, above all, taking his money—you’ll excuse me!”
