LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

The Creevey Papers
Thomas Creevey to Elizabeth Ord, 23 September 1831

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
“Brooks’s, Sept. 23rd.

“. . . Let me mention a thing which Sefton told me when I was at Stoke. I was expressing some surmise about this late jaw respecting the Duchess of Kent’s absence from the Coronation, and the cause of it, when, having according to custom bound me to secrecy, he said he would tell me all about it, having had it from Brougham. The offensive attack upon her for her absence, assigning pure pique as the cause of it, made its appearance in the Times newspaper, and this became food for all the others; upon which B. sent his secretary Le Marchant to Barnes, editor of the Times, insisting upon knowing whose article it was, knowing as he did that it was pure invention. Barnes said it came from an authority that he implicitly relied on, but that he could not and would not give him up. Le Marchant, when he brought this report to B., gave it as his opinion that, if B. himself took Barnes in hand, the latter would strike. He was, of course, summoned accordingly, and having yielded to the thundering or seducing arguments of our Vaux, the libeller turned out to be no other than Henry de Ros, as at present Lord de Ros. It seems he and Barnes have been lately mixed up a good deal together at Paris, and this is the use de Ros has chosen to make of the connection. It is barely possible that de Ros may have believed this to be true, upon the authority of his sister, who, you know, is Maid of Honor to the Queen. . . . The object, however, both
of sister and brother was clearly to do the Duchess of Kent an injury, and by such means to please the
King and Queen, particularly the latter, who is known to have somewhat adverse feelings to the Duchess. The thing, however, was utterly destitute of foundation, the Duchess of Kent having most respectfully asked the King for permission to absent herself on account of her child’s health, and the King, in the most gracious manner, having greatly extolled her conduct for the reasons assigned by her.

“The Duchess of Kent wrote to her adviser, Vaux, in a strain of the greatest distress and vexation, but she is now pacified, and he has informed her of his discovery of the slanderer, but that he humbly requests of her R. Highness that she will not command him to disclose the author. In the mean time, as no one knows better how to turn any little matter to account than our Vaux, and as he knows that de Ros is to be a thorough-stitch opposer of our Reform Bill in the Lords, he sends for the innocent Leinster, and he states to him with unaffected regret that Lord de Ros has unfortunately compromised himself and character in an affair of great publick importance, and is entirely in the hands of the Government. Under such circumstances, Vaux requests the Duke to urge his kinsman with all his might to use every possible caution against this matter being made publick. Now was there ever? Do you think de Ros’s vote will be withheld by this plot of Vaux’s?”