A curious petition under the Treating Act against Messrs. Windham and Coke, curious because it is not brought by the rejected candidate, who, on the contrary, declares he is not privy to the petition. It is the result of female spleen and revenge, a retaliation upon Mr. Windham for an election trick played by his party against these incensed heroines, Mesdames Atkins and Berney.[258] They had induced some electors to come forward and petition under the Treating Act; the three candidates unwisely consented to treat, not suspecting mischief could ensue from any other quarter. Mrs. Atkins was a celebrated actress, formerly of the name of Walpole. Her coadjutor is as great a virago as herself. ‘La vengeance est douce à l’esprit d’une femme.’ Windham had a double return, so will sit for some rotten borough. Serjeant Lens, who is his counsel, rather despairs of making out a defensible case.
The expedition of General Craufurd, which was not to take Teneriffe on its way to the S. Sea because it would take too much time, is now loitering and beating off the Cape de Verd Islands for want of convoy, which convoy has not at this moment quitted England.
January 4th, 1807.—The American Treaty is at length signed; it must go to the U. States for ratification before it can be made public. The only point gained is the settling the ill-humour, and fixing the continuous voyage;[259] the seamen question is still unsettled.
DEBATE ON THE NEGOTIATION
6th January.—Last night upon the subject of the negotiation, Whitbread took the most hostile line against Government, arguments mingled with invective against their conduct from the beginning to the end of the negotiation. He applauded Ld. Yarmouth’s proceedings, censured the recalling him, as well as the motives assigned for it, and found fault with everything done by Lauderdale; concluding the whole in the most personal manner to Grey, by moving the same amendment that Grey himself had moved on the Address to the King when Ld. Whitworth’s papers were under consideration.[260] Ld. Yarmouth, conceiving himself to be the injured party, spoke with warmth against Ministers; Perceval, with bitterness and scurrility against Fox. This strange conduct of Whitbread’s will be productive of great mischief, and unfortunately Ld. Holland, from an apprehension of being overcome if he risked mentioning his uncle’s name in public, did not speak on the night of the debate in ye House of Lords. His silence and Whitbread’s garrulity will corroborate the French story of the Fox party being discontented with Lauderdale’s conduct. This, however, can and will be justified immediately by his speaking, with or without an opportunity.
During the debate L. sat next to the Prince, who seemed mightily to relish Ld. Yarmouth’s occasional raps at the Grenvilles, and shortly after opened very freely upon his dissatisfaction; told him to sound H. upon the subject of the Pss., in which he spoke as if he suspected he was given up, and to ascertain whether, if so, he, Ld. H., was prepared to go out upon it; deeply deplored the loss of Fox, who was a man, fair, open, and attached. L. collected, which combined with other circumstances that had come to his knowledge, that Ld. Moira is playing a deep game, by trying to draw a line in the Cabinet of Prince’s friends and Grenville’s. He has never recovered the double disappointment, first, of not being made First Lord of the Treasury and Patron of Scotland, and, secondly, of not being acknowledged the successor of Fox in the Whig party. That is to say, the Prince styles himself the head of the Whig party, in imitation of his uncle, the D. of Cumberland, who was so in 1764, forgetting how foolish that was, but how much more foolish it is in an Heir Apparent! However, with this idea thrust upon him by Ld. Moira, he is the more likely to concur with Moira’s views, who would content himself with being styled his assistant upon such an assumption.
Ld. Holland dined at the India House where Ld. Minto had been sworn in;[261] Ld. M.’s spirit excessively depressed. If annoyed at going, why seek the appointment by such means?
WHITBREAD’S SPEECH
7th January, 1807.—A universal groan, a spontaneous, unanimous feeling of disgust in the H. of Commons, when Perceval attacked the character of Fox. The tune of it was that all the kingdoms of Europe had sunk by treachery, bribery of their principal persons; that Talleyrand, the base, corrupt Prime Minister of France, had been the agent; yet this immaculate character was the attached friend of Mr. ——.[262] The House shuddered, and interrupted the pronouncing of the name. He animadverted upon the correspondence carried on between them. Whitbread’s speech made a considerable impression upon some of the most valuable men in the House, but was not conclusively reasoned; he having completely overlooked the necessity of keeping faithful to our allies, the Russians. Some think that the greatest mischief done by his speech was the drawing out some very warlike sentiments from Grey, who answered both injudiciously and inconsistently (with former declarations) with regard to the duration and principle of the war, which he stated with all the exaggerated declamation of a pupil of the Pitt school. This is a most unfortunate error, and is the more to be regretted, as the case upon ye papers was so strong, and might have been defended upon the true principles of Mr. Fox’s pacific policy.
Roscoe[263] spoke yesterday for his maiden speech on the Thetford Petition: Windham says his manner is dull, coarse, and provincial. I do not think his talents are such as will enable him to add to his reputation by his public speaking.