all have in his truth, straightforwardness, and sincerity. He delights in the society of men of the world and in a life of gaiety and pleasure. He is very easily amused, and particularly with jokes full of coarseness and indelicacy; the men with whom he lives most are trèspolissons, and la polissonnerie is the ton of his society.'

Considering the times, we might be willing to make allowance for the royal taste in this respect, but Greville takes care to remind us of a few other things, such as owing money right and left— play debts included-which jar a little with the beau ideal of an English gentleman; and His Royal Highness's alleged depreciation of the Duke of Wellington, coming from a Commander-inChief who must or might have been acquainted with the truth, is quite irreconcilable with the frank manliness of his character. It does not mend the matter to be told that his dislike of the Duke arose from a belief that he himself would have been appointed to the command of the Peninsular army instead of Sir Arthur Wellesley had not His Royal Highness been betrayed.' As the result of various conversations with His Royal Highness, Greville says (what might easily be disproved): 'I think it not possible for any man to have a worse opinion of another man than the Duke (of York) has of the King. In the account of the Duchess, the virtues are thrown into the shade by the eccentricities, and she is made to appear not more refined than her husband in point of taste :

'Her mind is not perhaps the most delicate: she shows no dislike to coarseness of sentiment or language, and I have seen her very much amused with jokes, stories, and allusions which would shock a very nice person.'

The establishment at Oatlands is thus described by the grateful partaker of its hospitality :

'Oatlands is the worst-managed establishment in England; there are a great many servants and nobody waits on you; a vast number of horses, and none to ride or drive.'

The reckless extravagance of the royal host and hostess is illustrated by the sudden break-up of an immense party, the most numerous ever known there. The Duchess wished it to have been prolonged, but there were no funds. The distress they are in is inconceivable.'

The second novel of Boccaccio is the story of the conversion of a wealthy French Jew, which was brought about by a journey to Rome, where he was irresistibly struck by the dissolute habits, impiety, and immorality of the hierarchy and priesthood, from the Pope downwards. Seeing that the Christian religion flourished in spite of all they had done and were doing to dis

credit it, he came to the conclusion that it must be the truest, the most divine, and was baptized into it forthwith.

On reverting to this novel, it occurred to us that the Clerk and the Registrar of Her Majesty's Privy Council, in their capacity of loyal servants of the Crown, must have meditated the conversion of republicans by an analogous train of reasoning; or why, in a book blazoning their official designations on the title-page, should they have accumulated so many alleged instances of royal vice and folly, except for the purpose of demonstrating the inherent excellence of the monarchy which stands unshaken by the strain? At the same time it may be as well to bear in mind that vice and folly in princes have generally proved less dangerous to free institutions than morality, sobriety, and fixed principles of right. Charles I., a pattern of the domestic virtues, tried to arrest the five members in defiance of the privileges of Parliament, and died on the scaffold. Charles II., a selfish sensualist, passed the Habeas Corpus Act, and died quietly amongst his courtiers, courteously apologising to them for being so long about it, and leaving a safe throne to his more conscientious brother, who bartered it for a Mass. Lord Byron said or sang of George III. :—

'A better farmer ne'er brush'd dew from lawn.'

Nor, we would add, a better husband or father of a family; but he prolonged the American War of Independence and indefinitely postponed the conciliation of Ireland (which we begin to think never will be conciliated) by dogged adherence to his principles. He had a strong will of his own, and never fully accepted or acted on the constitutional doctrine, Le Roi règne et ne gouverne pas. George IV. behaved unexceptionally in this respect. He never insisted long on a line of policy disapproved by his responsible advisers; and the capital charge on which satirists rang the changes was, that he had no personal leanings or was always ready to sacrifice them to expediency.

'I am proud to declare I have no predilections,

My heart is a sieve, where some scatter'd affections
Are just danced about for a moment or two,

And the finer they are, the more sure to run through.'*

William IV., again, although he jibbed a little when he thought the Reform Ministry were driving him too fast, held the balance fairly between the conflicting parties, and seemed simply

* Moore's 'Parody of a Celebrated Letter.' (From the Regent to the Duke of York.)

anxious

anxious to consult the welfare of his people and carry out their constitutionally expressed wishes.

It is almost superfluous to add that, whilst indicating the causes which have happily prevented preceding monarchs from weakening monarchy by their extravagance or their eccentricity, we are not blind to the vast increase of strength it has acquired from a reign like the present, in which the domestic virtues of the Sovereign have been no less eminent than her enlightened appreciation and observance of the true spirit of our institutions. Greville speaks in the same disparaging manner of the great landed aristocracy; admitting all the while that they are the bulwarks of the throne. What great men are Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Rutland, and Lord Cleveland; but strip them of their wealth and power, what would they be? Amongst the most insignificant of mankind.' This recalls Crambo's attempt to form an abstract notion of a Lord Mayor without his furred robe, gold chain, and other ensigns of his dignity.

It is not unusual for Greville to lay down a rule for his own condemnation. In the affair of Who's the Traitor?' the charge against Sheil was, that he had approved in private a measure (the Irish Coercion Act) which he had publicly opposed.

'Hill (the accuser) called witnesses; one of whom, Macaulay, refused to speak. He said he would not repeat what had been said in private conversation. The Committee approved, and Hill threw up his case.'

6

Sir Francis Burdett went further than Macaulay, saying, that his memory was so constituted as not to retain any conversation that passed at or after dinner. Greville calls it a silly and discreditable business.' Yet he himself, if summoned as a witness in such a case, might have been served with a subpœna duces tecum and required to produce his notes. To name one occasion among a score, he writes down two private conversations with Lord Melbourne, for the express purpose of establishing a charge of political treachery, very similar to that against Sheil.

Whilst the Reform Bill was yet pending (April 1st, 1832), he represents Lord Melbourne intimating a wish that it might be thrown out, and asserting that the Government could not be carried on without the rotten boroughs.

'We had a great deal more talk, but then it is all talk, and à quoi bon with a man who holds these opinions, and acts as he does?'

Greville was obviously prone to confound what he himself said in the course of conversation with what was said by others,

and

and to mistake a partial agreement, or a courteous non-denial, for unequivocal assent. Lord Melbourne may have regretted the loss of the rotten boroughs, whilst convinced of the impossibility of retaining them. Every sane politician must have felt that it had become impossible. Even Canning, their most eloquent advocate, must have given them up in 1832.

6

On February 7th, 1832, Lord Melbourne extremely surprised' him by stating that all the members of the Cabinet were bonâ fide alarmed at, and averse to, the measure (the Reform Bill).'

'We then parted. Downstairs was Rothschild the Jew waiting for him, and the valet de chambre sweeping away a bonnet and shawl!'

It is a pity he did not peep into the dining-room to see if covers were laid for two.

'Stanley (not the ex-Secretary, but the Under-Secretary) told me last night an anecdote of Melbourne which I can very easily believe. When the King sent for him he told Young "he thought it a damned bore, and that he was in many minds what he should do-be Minister or no." Young said, "Why, damn it, such a position never was occupied by any Greek or Roman, and, if it only lasts two months, it is well worth while to have been Prime Minister of England." "By God, that's true," said Melbourne; "I'll go." Young is his private secretary-a vulgar, familiar, impudent fellow, but of indefatigable industry, and a man who suits Melbourne.'

Lord Melbourne, careless and frank, had a high-bred air which repelled undue familiarity. Tom Young's manner towards him was invariably respectful: rather that of an upper servant than of an equal, or of an intimate member of his society, which, indeed, Young never was. His business was to make himself generally useful. The style of the remonstrance, too, is entirely out of keeping with the character. Greeks and Romans were not at all in Young's line. He began life as a purser; and Greville says he was a writer and runner for the newspapers, which is only half true. He was a runner, not a writer.

The only statesman or public man of note whom Greville does not systematically depreciate, is Canning, a connection through the Bentincks; and the refusal to join Canning was, we fancy, at the bottom of his persistent hostility to Lord Grey.

'June 17th, 1827.-Lord Grey is in such a state of irritation that he

* Lord Houghton says in his Monograph of Sydney Smith': 'He was, indeed, not given to severe censure, but could convey it under light words when he chose; thus, when he checked the strong old-fashioned freedom of speech in Lord Melbourne, by suggesting that "they should assume everything and everybody to be damned and come to the subject."' Sydney Smith never addressed Lord Melbourne in this fashion.

will hardly speak to any of his old friends, and he declares that he will never set his foot in Brookes's again.'

This is sheer fabrication.

'More than this,' (continues Greville,) when it was the unanimous opinion of all the Whigs who joined Canning, that they could not join an Administration of which Peel formed part, this opinion was warmly combated by Lord Grey, who contended that there was no reason why they should not coalesce with Canning and Peel.'

*

Lord Grey had formally declared in 1812, that he would be no party to any Government which was not formed on the principle of carrying Catholic emancipation. Canning's Government was formed on the neutral or open question principle, like Lord Liverpool's. The junction with Peel would have confirmed Lord Grey's objections instead of removing them, and to assert that he contended for it is absurd.

'What induced him to alter his opinion so decidedly and to become so bitter an enemy to the present arrangements does not appear, unless it is to be attributed to a feeling of pique and resentment at not having been more consulted, or that overtures were not made to himself. The pretext he took for declaring himself was the appointment of Copley to be Chancellor, when he said that it was impossible to support a Government which had made such an appointment.'

He could not alter an opinion he never entertained: and he had no need of a pretext for acting on his known and frequently declared views. He, moreover, had distrusted Canning since 1806.

We pass on to December 12, 1830, the third week of the Reform Administration; when, after expressing his conviction that a more overrated man than the new Premier never lived: that he was influenced by pride, still more by vanity, caprice, and 'a thousand weaknesses:' that anybody who is constantly with him, and can avail themselves of his vanity, can govern him; that now Lambton (Lord Durham) is all in all with him-Greville proceeds:

'Everybody remembers how Lord Grey refused to lead the Whig party when Canning formed his junction with the Whigs, and declared that he abdicated in favour of Lord Lansdowne; and then how he came and made that violent speech against Canning which half killed him with vexation, and in consequence of which he meant to have moved into the House of Lords for the express purpose of attacking Lord Grey. Then when he had quarrelled with his old Whig friends he

*Letter of Lords Grey and Grenville to the Duke of York, dated Feb. 15, 1812, published in the Appendix to 'The Life and Opinions of Charles, second Earl Grey; by his son, General Grey.

began