Page images

this time only twenty-two years of age-could obviously not have been looking to either of the supposed objects: more especially as this time' was the moment of the Coalition triumph that had just displaced Lord Mornington's political friends and connexions. What Mr. Grenville meant was, that Lord Mornington had not only supported the late Government in the Irish House of Peers, but intended to obtain a seat in the English House of Commons-which he did early next year-with the view to support Mr. Pitt here. It is difficult to believe that the Duke of Buckingham could have mistaken these notorious facts.

It is also next to impossible that the Duke of Buckingham should have made the following blunder:-In describing the violence of the measures which the Irish Whigs imposed on Lord Fitzwilliam when, for a short time, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1795, and which necessitated his recall, the editor says,

'The Attorney General was to be displaced to make way for Mr. George Ponsonby; the Solicitor General was also to be removed, and Mr. Beresford, who was Purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Cooke, Secretary-at-War, were to be dismissed. The dismissal of Mr. Beresford was regarded as a measure of such extreme violence, that it brought matters to an issue between Lord Fitzwilliam and the Cabinet.'-ii. 328.

What the Lord Lieutenant had, it seems, a right to dismiss the Lord Chancellor's Purse-bearer!—and the dismissal of this high functionary was of sufficient importance to make an irreconcileable breach between the Irish and English Governments, and to occasion one of the most influential events in the Irish history of the last century-the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam! We do not see in the rest of the book the slightest indication of the editor's having taken the trouble to inquire about anything; but on this occasion he seems to have found out, as the result of extraordinary curiosity and research, that the name of the Chancellor's Purse-bearer was John Beresford; whereupon he, with his usual sagacity, concludes that this was the important placeman who had set the two nations by the ears-and inquires no further; if he had, he would have discovered that there was in Ireland another John Beresford, of a very different calibre-the Right Honourable John Beresford, next brother to the Marquis of Waterford; brother-in-law to the Marquis Townsend; M.P. for the county of Waterford; Privy Councillor in both countries; chief Commissioner of the Revenues in Ireland; and, above all, the able and consistent leader of what was considered as especially the English interest in Ireland. Could the Duke of Buckingham possibly mistake this gentleman for the Chancellor's Purse-bearer?


After these observations we think we may safely absolve the Duke of Buckingham from any personal share in the editorship of this work; but we cannot resist amusing our readers with a few other specimens of the qualifications of the person intrusted with that duty.

Mere errors of the press are not worth noticing; they will occasionally (as we ourselves too often show) escape editorial correction, and cannot be fairly adduced as proofs of the ignorance or negligence of an editor, except when they are so numerous and so systematic as to show that the deficiency is in a higher quarter than the compositor or reader of the printing-house. Such are the errors that swarm in these volumes, and form, we really think, their most remarkable characteristic. The peerage of Ireland especially is enriched with many titles and creations which neither we nor we think the heralds had ever before heard of. For instance, an Earldom of Bechoe, a Lord Glendon, and two newly-created peers, whose names-Jonson and Deland-were quite new to us. These names and titles were perhaps presented to the editor in a bad hand; but if he had called in the assistance of an old almanac, or even a late one, he would have easily deciphered that the noblemen meant were Lords Bective and Glandore, and Mr. Tonson, created Lord Riversdale, and Sir Francis Delaval, Lord Delaval. He additionally blunders these creations, and all about them, by misdating and misplacing the letter which relates to them as of the year 1785, under Mr. Pitt's administration, when, in fact, it belongs to 1783, during the reign of the Coalition. If the date of the letter were illegible, the editor might have found that of these creations in the Court Calendar; where also he might have discovered that there are no such British peerages as Loraine (ii. 64); Chenton (ii. 246); and Standish (i. 101); and that perhaps Lovain, Clinton, and Sandwich might be meant.

In the long agony of the King's illness Lord Grenville says that the Queen, in her distress,

'Sees nobody but Lady Constance, Lady Charlotte Finch, Miss Burney, and her two sons.'-i. 444.

We felt some interest to know who could be this 'gentle Lady Constance,' thus honourably distinguished, but we could not bring her to our recollection; the mention, however, of Miss Burney' afforded a clue, and in her fatras of Memoirs (of which -soit dit en passant-the part relating to this period is much the best) we find that Lady Courtown was meant.

Indeed, wherever a proper name at all unusual occurs, we find the printers making, and the editor sanctioning, such strange blunders as render the statements unintelligible, without


much more thought and reference than an ordinary reader is disposed to give. Who would guess that 'poor Merey' meant the Count de Mercy-Argenteau; that Clerfage, ‘Mulin,' and 'Pequet,' meant Clairfayt, Melas, Piquet? Amongst the M.P.s that ratted' from Mr. Pitt on the King's illness in 1788, we find Sir Samuel Hurmery! We had never heard this name— it might as well have been printed Mummery, for it turns out that the person meant was Sir Samuel Hannay-a name pretty notorious at that day, and not quite forgotten in the quackmedicine shops in ours. A geographical reader will be surprised to learn, on Lord Grenville's authority, that Cuxhaven is a port in Ireland; and an historical reader may be puzzled to discover how the world was likely to be involved in war on the subject of Northa. Lord Grenville was only talking of Crookhaven and Nootka Sound!

These are trifles which are noticeable only for their obstinate frequency; but the two following have the merit of being droll. Sir Hugh Palliser would have been wonderfully astonished if he had lived to hear himself called Saint Hugh-(i. 186). Timid and hesitating as we knew the Duke of Brunswick's movements had been in his campaign in Flanders, we were startled at finding, from the unexceptionable evidence of Lord Grenville, that a movement which was the only extrication for his army from a critical position had become

'impossible; at least till the post comes.'—ii. 219.

The post-a great military manoeuvre waiting for the post! and what post? From London, Vienna, or Berlin? If our readers are not quicker than we were at solving this mystery, they will laugh out, as we ourselves did, when we called to mind that the Duke was in a swampy country intersected with streams, and that his intended movement was impossible till the frost should come.'


There is another even more numerous class of misprints which it is proper to notice, as an additional proof that neither the Duke of Buckingham, nor any one who had ever been even at a Latin grammar school, could have edited these volumes. It is observable that, with, we think, the single instance we have just noticed of post for frost, the English text of the volumes (proper names and titles apart) is very correctly printed; and in the numerous French quotations we do not recollect a single error; whereas of the more numerous Latin quotations there is hardly one that does not prove the editor's ignorance of one syllable of that language. We shall give a series of these mistakes as assuredly a great curiosity in this age of education. We copy them literatim.


• Liberari animans meam.'—i. 69.

"En quo discordia cives prodaxit miseros.'—i. 144.
'Amiciteæ sempiterea inimicetra placabiles.-i. 186.

Tibi Brachia contrahit ardens Scopius et cæli plus justâ parte reliquit.'-i. 234.

'Parvula quidem ex queis magun exoriuntur.'—ii. 16.

"Quod predetendici patuisse, et non potuissse refelli.'—ii. 148. Et librari animum meum.'-ii. 189.

'Caliginosâ nocta.—ii. 222.

'Laudo momentem.'-ii. 364.

Our readers, we think, will agree that this systematic mangling of the Latin, in a work where the French is correctly given, is a remarkable feature, which cannot be attributable merely to the printers. One thing is certain-that such quotations never could have passed under the eyes of the Duke of Buckingham.

But the editor's blunders are often of a more substantial character, and exhibit a degree of ignorance of the political history of the times which would be quite incredible if we had it not before our eyes. While Lord Temple was Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Grenville his Chief Secretary, the latter had an interview in London with the Home Secretary of State (December 30, 1782), and in pressing on him the difficulties of the Lord Lieutenant in steering the Government through the factions of the Irish Parliament, he asked

'Tell me to whom I am to apply. To the Duke of Portland's people? [the Whigs]-to the old court and Lord Shannon? [the Tories]-or to Hood and his set?'-i. 107.


Neither we, nor any one else, had ever before heard of' Hood and his set' as an Irish faction. Lord Hood, indeed, was an Irish peer -an honorary one in every sense of the word-but had never, believe, appeared in Ireland, and assuredly had no set anywhere. The editor apparently had never heard of the celebrated Henry Flood, who had now raised a third, or independent Irish party, to whom, and not to any of the gallant nautical family of Hood, Mr. Grenville alluded.

The following riddle, introduced without a syllable of preparation or explanation into one of Lord Grenville's letters (June 1, 1798), puzzled us for a moment:

I do not think that Pitt could have avoided answering Fremey's call.'-ii. 398.

Who was Fremey, and what was the call? We really had looked a few pages backwards and forwards for some clue, before we recollected Pitt's duel with Tierney, which it is clear that the editor had never happened to hear of; for in mentioning,

mentioning, a few pages earlier, a duel that had taken place in Ireland between Lord Hobart, the Lord Lieutenant's Secretary, and Curran, he adds

In no other country in the world, undoubtedly, from a cause so absurd and unwarrantable could the necessity for such a meeting have arisen.'-ii. 178.

but Tierney's call was at least as absurd as Curran's, and Pitt's answering it as little warrantable as Hobart's.

The following instance of the fitness of the editor for writing an explanatory and historical narrative will, even after what we have already said, astonish our readers :

The first incident of the year [1797] to which allusion is made in these letters is the appearance in British waters of a French squadron. It consisted of two frigates and two sloops, and its insignificance, compared with the demonstration that was anticipated from the loud threats of invasion by which it was heralded, excited ridicule rather than alarm.'-ii. 262.


This is the description which the editor gives of the celebrated Bantry Bay expedition, which everybody else knows was one of the most formidable attempts that France had ever made against The fleet, which sailed from Brest on the 14th December, 1796, so far from being only two frigates and two sloops, consisted of seventeen sail of the line, thirteen frigates, six sloops, and eight other vessels; in all forty-four sail, having on board about 18,000 men, the flower of the French army, under Generals Hoche, Grouchy, and Humbert! But even more extraordinary than the enormous mistake as to the amount of the force is, that the editor's statement is an explanatory introduction to a letter of Lord Grenville's, dated London, 4th January, which begins by stating

That the French fleet is, if not entirely, certainly in a great part broken to pieces. Two French seventy-fours and a frigate had put into Bantry Bay, and other vessels were seen also trying to get into the Bay.'-ii. 363.

In fact, eight sail of the line, with 6000 troops, got into the Bay, while the rest, either from mistake or mismanagement, made for the mouth of the Shannon. Lord Grenville's letter then proceeds to announce the wreck of several other vessels of the dispersed fleet; and it is in the face of this very letter, and in professed explanation of it, that we find the statement that this insignificant expedition consisted of two frigates and two sloops. This is passing strange; yet stranger still is it, that immediately following the letter, and on the same page, we find this additional extravagance:

'The sequel of this expedition was sufficiently ludicrous.'-ib. The sequel having been, in every way, most lamentable; for it was disastrous

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »