LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

The Creevey Papers
Thomas Creevey to Elizabeth Ord, 14 December 1827

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
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
“Liverpool, Dec. 14, 1827.

“I left Croxteth yesterday. . . . Sefton first gave me your letter, but his main object [in coming to my room] was to show me in the most perfect confidence a letter he received from Brougham this morning, enclosing one the latter had received from Lambton at

* The Earl of Dudley’s family name being Ward.

Paris, and as Sefton said when I had seen both letters, it would be for me to decide which was the greatest madman. The subject was
Lambton’s peerage, which he (Lambton) contends should not be a simple barony, very properly observing that it is no promotion for the first commoner of England to be made the last baron! But, in short, without seeing his letter with one’s own eyes, its contents would be perfectly incredible, and the result is his calling upon Brougham by all those ties of early disinterested friendship, which have bound them to each other for life, not to let him be less than an earl. . . . Brougham states in reply, or says he does so, that our friends in power are so jealous of any approach to them, that it is quite impossible to assist him; and then, in his comment upon Lambton’s letter, loads him with every species of ridicule for his pretensions; till at length he gravely enters the field himself as a man of family at least two centuries older than that of Lambton, and as having the 2nd barony of England in his (Brougham’s) own blood. Now really! was there ever? . . . Punch* writes there is not an individual in the city who does not consider our attack upon the Turkish fleet [at Navarino] as the greatest outrage ever committed by any Government or country, and above all—by ours. In speaking of Lord Goodrich he says he is considered by all as a mere nullity, and by no one more so than the King, and does whatever he likes and cares for no one. Pretty well this from Mr. Clerk of the Council, is it not?

“Before these letters came Sefton had said to me:—‘By God! the Government can never stand; this Navarino business must destroy them.’ . . . Only think of there not being a syllable of politicks in Brougham’s letter to him yesterday! I saw it all. My own belief is that Brougham is not the person to whom Sefton has bound himself, if in some unguarded moment he has done so; but I suspect it is Petty. He always speaks of Brougham as if he loathed him. My dispatch to Grey contains all the matter just stated, except about the Brougham and Lambton correspondence. . . .”