Welbeck, November 16th, 1822
I have had a great deal of conversation with Titchfield,[12] particularly about Canning, and he told me this curious fact about his coming into office:—When the King had consented to receive him he wrote a letter nearly in these words to Lord Liverpool: ‘The King thinks that the brightest jewel in the crown is to extend his forgiveness [I am not sure that this was the word[13]] to a subject who has offended him, and he therefore informs Lord L. that he consents to Mr. Canning forming a part of the Cabinet.’ This letter was communicated by Lord Liverpool to Canning, and upon reading it he was indignant, as were his wife and his daughter. The CANNING AND GEORGE IV. consequence was that he wrote a most violent and indignant reply, addressed to the same person to whom the other letter had been addressed, and which was intended in like manner to be shown to the King, as the King’s letter was to him. Upon hearing what had passed, however, down came Lord Granville and Mr. Ellis in a great hurry, and used every argument to dissuade him from sending the letter, urging that he had entirely misunderstood the purport of the letter which had offended him; that it was intended as an invitation to reconciliation, and contained nothing which could have been meant as offensive; that the country would be so dissatisfied (which ardently desired and expected that he should come into office) if he rejected this overture that he would not be justified in refusing his services to the public, who so anxiously wished for them. These arguments, vehemently urged and put in every possible shape, prevailed, and the angry reply was put in the fire, and another written full of gratitude, duty, and acquiescence.
[12] [The Marquis of Titchfield, eldest son of the fourth Duke of Portland, Mr. Greville’s first cousin, died in the twenty-eighth year of his age.]
[13] [The exact words in the King’s letter to Lord Liverpool are ‘extend his grace and favour to a subject who may have incurred his displeasure.’ This letter, Lord Liverpool’s letter transmitting it to Mr. Canning, and Mr. Canning’s answer to Lord Liverpool are now all published in Mr. Yonge’s ‘Life and Administration of Lord Liverpool,’ vol. iii. p. 200.]
London, November 24th, 1822
The morning I left Welbeck I had a long conversation with Titchfield upon various matters connected with politics and his family, particularly relating to Lord William’s correspondence with Lord Liverpool about the Government of India. He showed me this correspondence, in which, as I anticipated, Lord William had the worst of it. Lord Liverpool’s answer was unanswerable. He showed me also a very long letter which he had received from Lord William, together with the copies of the correspondence, which was written the evening before he went abroad. In this letter (which I only read once, and which was so long that I cannot recollect it) he gave a detailed account of his sentiments upon the Indian matter, with the reasons for his having acted as he did, also his feelings with regard to the manner in which Canning had behaved upon the occasion and a conversation which he had with Mrs. Canning.[14] This latter I think exceedingly curious, because it serves to show what the object and the pretensions of Canning are in taking office, and exhibit that ambition the whole extent of which he dares not show. It seems that the Directors were anxious that Lord William should be appointed Governor-General, and this he knew through friends of his in the Court. Government, however, having signified their dissent to his nomination, Lord Amherst was nominated by the Court and accepted. Lord William’s displeasure with Canning arises from an idea that Canning was backward in supporting his interests in this matter, and that he kept aloof from Lord William, and acquiesced in his rejection without ever communicating with him on the subject. Had Canning stated to him the difficulties under which he laboured, from his anxiety to serve him on the one hand and his obligation of coinciding with his colleagues on the other, Lord William would not have hesitated to desire him to abandon his interests rather than involve himself in any embarrassment on his account. He wrote to Lord Liverpool to complain that the Court of Directors being inclined to nominate him, Lord L. had interposed his influence to prevent that nomination; that he did not ask Lord L. to consent to his appointment, but he did ask him not to interpose his influence to prevent his nomination, because that nomination was essential to his character, as proving that the Court of Directors were satisfied of the injustice with which he had been treated in the affair of the Vellore mutiny. Lord Liverpool’s answer was short and civil, assuring him that he had neither directly nor indirectly exerted any influence at all, maintaining his right to give his opinion to the Directors in case it had been asked, and stating that Lord Amherst had been proposed by the Court and accepted by Government.[15] LORD WILLIAM BENTINCK. Whilst this matter was still pending, and before Lord Amherst’s appointment had been made known, Lord William went to Gloucester Lodge. He saw Mrs. Canning, and being anxious to acquire information concerning the Indian appointment, he told her that she had an opportunity of obliging him by telling him anything she knew concerning it. She answered very quickly and in a very bad humour, ‘Oh, it is all settled; Lord Amherst is appointed.’ She then put into his hand a letter which Canning had received that morning from the Duke of Portland, declining his offer of the Private Secretaryship for John and George, alleging as a reason the hostile politics of Lord William and Titchfield. Mrs. Canning said that she had no idea that they would not have supported Canning, that she was aware they differed on some matters of minor importance, but that she had imagined their general opinions to be similar; that she had conceived Lord William’s opposition to have been directed against Lord Londonderry, and that it would have ceased with his death; that ‘the present must be considered as a new Administration, and that Canning must be virtually Minister of the country.’ Lord William replied that he could not view it in that light, that he thought it likely the introduction of Canning into the Cabinet might effect a beneficial influence on the measures of Government, and more particularly that a system of foreign policy might be adopted more congenial to his sentiments upon that subject; that it would give him the greatest pleasure to see such a change of measures as would enable him to give his support to a Government of which Canning was so conspicuous a member, but that he could not think that to be a new Administration which was composed (with the sole exception of Canning) of precisely the same persons of which it consisted before he joined them.
[14] [Mrs. Canning was the younger sister of Henrietta, wife of the fourth Duke of Portland, both of them being the daughters and coheiresses of Major-General John Scott of Balcomie. Lord William Bentinck, the Duke’s brother, was therefore a near connection, and Lord George Bentinck and Lord John Bentinck, the Duke’s sons, were by their mother’s side Mrs. Canning’s nephews. Lady Charlotte Greville, Mr. Charles Greville’s mother, was of course connected with Mrs. Canning in the same degree as her brother Lord William Bentinck.]
[15] [Lord Liverpool’s letter to the King on this appointment has been published by Mr. Yonge in his Life of that statesman. He stated strongly to George IV. his opinion that although Lord William Bentinck was supported by a powerful party in the Court of Directors, he thought it would be ‘humiliating to the Government and productive of the very worst effects to appoint to such a station a man who had taken so strong a part in Parliamentary Opposition.’ George IV. replied that he thought it ‘highly unadvisable that Lord William Bentinck should be the successor of the Marquis of Hastings.’ (Yonge’s ‘Life of Lord Liverpool,’ vol. iii. p. 204.) Lord William Bentinck had previously been Governor of Madras at the time of the mutiny at Vellore.]
George,[16] after having refused the Private Secretaryship, was talked over by Canning and accepted it. He tried to gain over John, but he refused to share it.
[16] [Lord George Bentinck, third son of the fourth Duke of Portland; born 1802, died 1848; afterwards distinguished as the leader of the Protectionist party.]